# Dugger vs Dunham



## GURPS

Dunham - darling of the left - admitted last yr to inappropriately touching her sister - a collective  and a hearty You Go Girl was heard from the left 

Dugger - word was leaked to tabloid and Progressives rejoice 







> *The Duggars Aren’t Hypocrites. Progressives Are.*
> 
> 
> It’s always interesting to watch progressives discover sexual morality just in time to denounce a right winger, only to shed the pretense as soon as the next liberal pervert comes out of the woodwork.
> 
> They are moral opportunists. They are the actual hypocrites. This outrage is a charade. A circus. A show. A political ploy.
> 
> It always is.
> 
> [clip]
> 
> I don’t know all of the details. Nobody outside of the family does or ever will. But it appears that Josh’s parents attempted to address the situation within their family before going to the church, and then eventually to a law enforcement officer. Again, there might be parts of this story that would change my analysis, but right now, based on what we know, it seems that they handled this the right way. Or at least, I can’t say for sure that I would have known any better way to go about it.
> 
> [clip]
> 
> 4) I’m confused about when past sins are relevant and when they aren’t. Today, I’m told Josh Duggar’s actions from 12 years ago ought to be enough to, as Montel Williams declared, forever brand him a “slimebag” and a “danger to kids.” But I can recall recent cases, like Mike Brown’s, where past crimes were completely irrelevant, even though the past crime happened, like, three minutes before he assaulted Officer Darren Wilson.
> 
> I’m having trouble following the logic.


----------



## Hijinx

GURPS said:


> Dunham - darling of the left - admitted last yr to inappropriately touching her sister - a collective  and a hearty You Go Girl was heard from the left
> 
> Dugger - word was leaked to tabloid and Progressives rejoice



Who TF is Montel Williams to pass judgement. Is he some kind of saint?


----------



## officeguy

Lots of sick to go around.


----------



## littlelady

officeguy said:


> Lots of sick to go around.



Maybe 19 children is too many, and the parents couldn't give enough guidance and affection to all of them.  I have to say I am impressed that the mom could give birth so many times.  I wonder what the record is.  I need to Bing that.


----------



## officeguy

littlelady said:


> Maybe 19 children is too many, and the parents couldn't give enough guidance and affection to all of them.  I have to say I am impressed that the mom could give birth so many times.  I wonder what the record is.  I need to Bing that.



This is the oldest one, so presumably when he was a kid they were only in the 1/2 dozen range. The obsession of his parents probably robbed him of part of his childhood as he had to raise most of the younger brood at a point in life when he wasn't emotionally ready for it.


----------



## littlelady

officeguy said:


> This is the oldest one, so presumably when he was a kid they were only in the 1/2 dozen range. The obsession of his parents probably robbed him of part of his childhood as he had to raise most of the younger brood at a point in life when he wasn't emotionally ready for it.



That is a really good point.  Older children have had to take on the roll of caretaker in many situations.  Maybe the Duggars hold the modern record.  

I know off topic, but interesting.  I Binged this topic every which way and what keeps coming up is:

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-prolific-mother-ever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feodor_Vassilyev


----------



## vraiblonde

I hate Lena Dunham.  She is such a douche.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> I hate Lena Dunham.  She is such a douche.



She is a douche, but she isn't some molester. Her story was an embellished game of what would have been called 'playing doctor' when we were growing up. It sounds like Duggar was a serial sexual offender, his family knew, and try all covered it up.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> She is a douche, but she isn't some molester. Her story was an embellished game of what would have been called 'playing doctor' when we were growing up. It sounds like Duggar was a serial sexual offender, his family knew, and try all covered it up.



Oh please. She molested her little sister.  At least Josh Duggar molested girls his own age (or so it would seem).


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> Oh please. She molested her little sister.  At least Josh Duggar molested girls his own age (or so it would seem).



Please, her story probably wasn't even true. It seemed as made up as could be and simply the vehicle for her to tell a story of her sexual identity 'awakening'. IF she actually did it, it was one incident. it wouldn't measure up to someone who repeatedly assaulted numerous girls, some on more than one occasion.


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> Please, her story probably wasn't even true. It seemed as made up as could be and simply the vehicle for her to tell a story of her sexual identity 'awakening'. IF she actually did it, it was one incident. it wouldn't measure up to someone who repeatedly assaulted numerous girls, some on more than one occasion.



Show me a boy at 16 who hasn't tried to feel up a girl and I will show you a man who has a problem with his sexual identity.
Now a sleeping girl is a little creepy, but boys engaging in a little breast feeling or fingering is pretty normal.
The jails would be full of them if prosecuted.


----------



## Midnightrider

Hijinx said:


> Show me a boy at 16 who hasn't tried to feel up a girl and I will show you a man who has a problem with his sexual identity.
> Now a sleeping girl is a little creepy, but boys engaging in a little breast feeling or fingering is pretty normal.
> The jails would be full of them if prosecuted.


There is a difference between consensual activity and molestation. Touching a sleeping girl isn't creepy, its illegal. Why am I not surprised you would be defending a sexual predator?


----------



## officeguy

Hijinx said:


> Show me a boy at 16 who hasn't tried to feel up a girl and I will show you a man who has a problem with his sexual identity.
> Now a sleeping girl is a little creepy, but boys engaging in a little breast feeling or fingering is pretty normal.



Mh, no, it's not normal.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

Hijinx said:


> Show me a boy at 16 who hasn't tried to feel up a girl and I will show you a man who has a problem with his sexual identity.
> Now a sleeping girl is a little creepy, but boys engaging in a little breast feeling or fingering is pretty normal.
> The jails would be full of them if prosecuted.



You ####ing paedo.


----------



## Hijinx

officeguy said:


> Mh, no, it's not normal.



So how old were you when you actually started petting? 45????


----------



## Midnightrider

Hijinx said:


> So how old were you when you actually started petting? 45????



There is a difference between consensual petting and molestation or sexual assault


----------



## vraiblonde

LibertyBeacon said:


> You ####ing paedo.



Now, why do you say that?  If two 14 year olds get to gettin', are one or both of them pedophiles?  I mean, technically they are not because pedophilia refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent youngsters, and a teenager wouldn't be part of that group.  However let's pretend it's two 6 year olds playing doctor - are they pedophiles?

You all throw that term around so often, clearly you don't even know what it means.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

vraiblonde said:


> Now, why do you say that?  If two 14 year olds get to gettin', are one or both of them pedophiles?  I mean, technically they are not because pedophilia refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent youngsters, and a teenager wouldn't be part of that group.  However let's pretend it's two 6 year olds playing doctor - are they pedophiles?
> 
> You all throw that term around so often, clearly you don't even know what it means.


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> There is a difference between consensual petting and molestation or sexual assault



No sh1t Sherlock. Did you figure that out all by yourself?


I believe I said creepy. I am sorry, I should have said criminal, I should have said he should be punished for it the rest if his life perhaps even spending that life in prison, for feeling up a sleeping girl, that may have satisfied you a-holes who want to crucify this man because he has made a few bucks, got on TV, and is now an upstanding citizen.

Now if he had robbed a store , had a record, and gotten shot by a police officer we would be putting a plaque in the street for him.
But all he did was turn his life around and become decent. So let's hound him, break him, crucify him.

If he had smoked Marijuana and tried Cocaine while in college we could elect him President.
But he felt up a sleeping girl.
He could stick a Cigar in a  young intern and beat off in the sink and you would vote for him a-hole so don't get on your high horse with me.
He could be a woman responsible for the deaths of 4 heroes and a is a lying sack of crap and you will vote for her.

Certainly he was wrong. we all know that, but let's make a federal case of it because this guy is on the right, and not the left.


----------



## Monello

Midnightrider said:


> Please, her story probably wasn't even true. It seemed as made up as could be and simply the vehicle for her to tell a story of her sexual identity 'awakening'.



So then she's a liar.  I wonder what else she's said that is a lie.


----------



## GregV814

Midnightrider said:


> Please, her story probably wasn't even true. It seemed as made up as could be and simply the vehicle for her to tell a story of her sexual identity 'awakening'. IF she actually did it, it was one incident. it wouldn't measure up to someone who repeatedly assaulted numerous girls, some on more than one occasion.





how quickly we jump to conclusions due to "other" factors.....a rose by any other name still smells as sweet


----------



## Midnightrider

Monello said:


> So then she's a liar.  I wonder what else she's said that is a lie.


She writes fiction doesn't she? Telling stories is her career.... I would imagine she lies a lot


Hijinx said:


> No sh1t Sherlock. Did you figure that out all by yourself?
> 
> 
> I believe I said creepy. I am sorry, I should have said criminal, I should have said he should be punished for it the rest if his life perhaps even spending that life in prison, for feeling up a sleeping girl, that may have satisfied you a-holes who want to crucify this man because he has made a few bucks, got on TV, and is now an upstanding citizen.
> 
> Now if he had robbed a store , had a record, and gotten shot by a police officer we would be putting a plaque in the street for him.
> But all he did was turn his life around and become decent. So let's hound him, break him, crucify him.
> 
> If he had smoked Marijuana and tried Cocaine while in college we could elect him President.
> But he felt up a sleeping girl.
> He could stick a Cigar in a  young intern and beat off in the sink and you would vote for him a-hole so don't get on your high horse with me.
> He could be a woman responsible for the deaths of 4 heroes and a is a lying sack of crap and you will vote for her.
> 
> Certainly he was wrong. we all know that, but let's make a federal case of it because this guy is on the right, and not the left.



I don't care right or left. What I care about is a guy being a sexual predator. Anyone who tries to excuse or defend his touching girls who did not want to be touched is crappy. This guy should be on the sex offenders list. Probably the only reason he isn't is because he and his family covered it up for long enough. 

Rapists and molesters should be prosecuted and ostracized, period.


As for the rest of your post, if you only got paid for being wrong you would be rich


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> She writes fiction doesn't she? Telling stories is her career.... I would imagine she lies a lot
> 
> 
> I don't care right or left. What I care about is a guy being a sexual predator. Anyone who tries to excuse or defend his touching girls who did not want to be touched is crappy. This guy should be on the sex offenders list. Probably the only reason he isn't is because he and his family covered it up for long enough.
> 
> Rapists and molesters should be prosecuted and ostracized, period.
> 
> 
> As for the rest of your post, if you only got paid for being wrong you would be rich



Says the pot to the kettle/ LMAO.   Clinton raped do you want him prosecuted.?


----------



## Midnightrider

Hijinx said:


> Says the pot to the kettle/ LMAO.   Clinton raped do you want him prosecuted.?



You are an idiot, and you need to look up the word rape.

Clinton did not rape anyone. If he had he should have been prosecuted, but he didn't.


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> You are an idiot, and you need to look up the word rape.
> 
> Clinton did not rape anyone. If he had he should have been prosecuted, but he didn't.



Well you are right about one thing. He should have been prosecuted,, but you see he was Bill Clinton.
He had the media in his pocket
I don't mind you calling me an idiot. Because that is how I think of you and your purported education.
I doubt you got out of High School.
Your nose up the Clinton's ass is proof enough of your idiocy.


----------



## Midnightrider

Hijinx said:


> Well you are right about one thing. He should have been prosecuted,, but you see he was Bill Clinton.
> He had the media in his pocket
> I don't mind you calling me an idiot. Because that is how I think of you and your purported education.
> I doubt you got out of High School.
> Your nose up the Clinton's ass is proof enough of your idiocy.



If you can show where I ever supported a Clinton I will sign off for good. 



You are an idiot if you think what Bill did was rape. But please, explain what you think Clinton did and how that was 'rape' or even illegal....


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> You are an idiot, and you need to look up the word rape.
> 
> Clinton did not rape anyone. If he had he should have been prosecuted, but he didn't.



Juanita Broaddrick says he did.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> Juanita Broaddrick says he did.



Which one of her stories are we supposed to believe? 

But like I said, if he did it he should be prosecuted. Apparently she filed an affidavit saying he didn't, so that's going to be a hard one to prove....


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> Which one of her stories are we supposed to believe?
> 
> But like I said, if he did it he should be prosecuted. Apparently she filed an affidavit saying he didn't, so that's going to be a hard one to prove....



As usual, you believe what you want to believe.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> As usual, you believe what you want to believe.



I don't know what to believe, this is Straight from the link you provided.



> In 1997, Broaddrick had filed an affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers that stated: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies."[1] In a November 1998 interview with Dateline NBC, Broaddrick claimed the earlier statement was a lie and she had indeed been raped by Clinton.[2]



:shrug:
if he did it he should be prosecuted. I doubt you are going to convict anybody when the victim has filed an affidavit saying the incident didn't happen.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> I don't know what to believe, this is Straight from the link you provided.



Her Dateline story was convincing and that is what I believe, especially since his womanizing and various power abuses are fully documented and not in dispute.  I'll be honest, when I first heard about it I thought it was ridiculous to even entertain the notion that Clinton would do something like that.  I figured it was just like those "death lists" and the other nonsense that floats around the internet that have no basis in fact.  But....yeah, ol' Willie Jeff isn't terribly credible when he insists he didn't use the power of his office to score some butt.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with Josh Duggar and whether or not he is/was a sexual predator.  And it also doesn't answer the question of why we give a crap.


----------



## rdytogo

Hijinx said:


> Who TF is Montel Williams to pass judgement. Is he some kind of saint?



I would say he is at least as qualified as you to do so!  Naval Academy Graduate, former Marine, philanthripist.....Those credentials suit me well.  Can you do better?


----------



## vraiblonde

Montel is an idiot who doesn't know chit about anything.  He, of all people, has no business criticizing anyone.  Ever.  Never ever.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> Her Dateline story was convincing and that is what I believe, especially since his womanizing and various power abuses are fully documented and not in dispute.  I'll be honest, when I first heard about it I thought it was ridiculous to even entertain the notion that Clinton would do something like that.  I figured it was just like those "death lists" and the other nonsense that floats around the internet that have no basis in fact.  But....yeah, ol' Willie Jeff isn't terribly credible when he insists he didn't use the power of his office to score some butt.
> 
> Regardless, that has nothing to do with Josh Duggar and whether or not he is/was a sexual predator.  And it also doesn't answer the question of why we give a crap.



I'm pretty bugged about the Duggar thing.  He was (what?) 14?  It seems the family took care of the issue.  It happened about 13 years ago, the show has been on for 7 years, and just now the network takes action to shut the show down?  If anything, this could be a teachable moment for folks to see that even the most devout Christian families experience problems.  I know this is an opportunity for the anti-Christian zealots to point their judgmental fingers at Christians, but the larger narrative should be that "we're Christian and not perfect".  

I haven't seen anything about TLC shutting the show down because advertisers were dropping or viewership was faltering.  So, I'm curious what the reason was for shutting it down.  When we have shows that display some of the most shameful, salacious behavior (reality TV being most guilty), it was kind of refreshing to see this large family so organized and seemingly cooperative with each other.  They showed what Christian faith hard work does in a family; as well, AGAIN, how it’s never perfect and nor should they pretend that it is.


----------



## officeguy

PsyOps said:


> I haven't seen anything about TLC shutting the show down because advertisers were dropping or viewership was faltering.  So, I'm curious what the reason was for shutting it down.



The reason is that TV networks are run by spineless lawyers who are afraid of shareholder lawsuits. Look at how quickly they canned the Duck Dynasty after the old guy expressed that he didn't understand gay men. The same spineless weasels put the show back on after the blow-back from the viewership made clear that they had screwed up.

I dont understand why the family went on the show knowing that they had this issue with their oldest. I guess feeding 17 hungry mouths on a realtors income wasn't as easy as anticipated and that production money from TLC came in quite handy.


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> I'm pretty bugged about the Duggar thing.



I am unimpressed with his level of perversion.  A 14 year old boy copping a feel of his sisters' friends - big whoop.  At least one of the encounters is reported to be consensual and reciprocated, but nobody seems to care about that part.

I'm more disturbed by the people who have such hatred for this family (that they do not even know, and who have given them no reason to have such a visceral reaction) that they'd label this guy a pedophile although there is NO evidence of it whatsoever.  This is how crap starts and ruins lives, the rumor mill and people spreading lies until they become "truth".  It makes me hate the internet.


----------



## PsyOps

officeguy said:


> The reason is that TV networks are run by spineless lawyers who are afraid of shareholder lawsuits. Look at how quickly they canned the Duck Dynasty after the old guy expressed that he didn't understand gay men. The same spineless weasels put the show back on after the blow-back from the viewership made clear that they had screwed up.
> 
> I dont understand why the family went on the show knowing that they had this issue with their oldest. I guess feeding 17 hungry mouths on a realtors income wasn't as easy as anticipated and that production money from TLC came in quite handy.



It’s been my understanding networks make these decisions based on money and viewership, not political correctness.  Perhaps this is a move like the Duck Dynasty move… can them and watch viewers’ reaction to decide whether to put the show back on.  Must be the new standard.

I honestly don't care for these shows all that much.  I'm not all that comfortable with parents so willing to exploit their kids like this.


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> It’s been my understanding networks make these decisions based on money and viewership, not political correctness.  Perhaps this is a move like the Duck Dynasty move… can them and watch viewers’ reaction to decide whether to put the show back on.  Must be the new standard.
> 
> I honestly don't care for these shows all that much.  I'm not all that comfortable with parents so willing to exploit their kids like this.



I think a lot of what these zealots do business-wise is based on their ideology and PC nonsense.  I also like a peek into the lives of interesting people whom I do not know.  I don't really think of them as "reality", but more as a sitcom or family drama.  Those people are actors to me and nothing I take personally.

The Bruce Jenner "out" episode of Kardashians was epic television and the best episode I've ever seen.  I am convinced, however, that Bruce is only becoming a woman so he can hit from the ladies' tees.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> I am unimpressed with his level of perversion.  A 14 year old boy copping a feel of his sisters' friends - big whoop.  At least one of the encounters is reported to be consensual and reciprocated, but nobody seems to care about that part.
> 
> I'm more disturbed by the people who have such hatred for this family (that they do not even know, and who have given them no reason to have such a visceral reaction) that they'd label this guy a pedophile although there is NO evidence of it whatsoever.  This is how crap starts and ruins lives, the rumor mill and people spreading lies until they become "truth".  It makes me hate the internet.



It’s just my negativity because of my faith that it’s the anti-Christian zealots that hate them.  They will jump on any opportunity to vilify Christians.  I totally get that these people exist.  What I don’t get is a fairly large network cowering to these haters.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> I think a lot of what these zealots do business-wise is based on their ideology and PC nonsense.  I also like a peek into the lives of interesting people whom I do not know.  I don't really think of them as "reality", but more as a sitcom or family drama.  Those people are actors to me and nothing I take personally.
> 
> The Bruce Jenner "out" episode of Kardashians was epic television and the best episode I've ever seen.  I am convinced, however, that Bruce is only becoming a woman so he can hit from the ladies' tees.



If that were true, the Duggar show would have never made the cut.  The only reason I've watched the Duggars is, for me it's kind of nice seeing a show that isn't filled with mindless, salacious debauchery.


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> If that were true, the Duggar show would have never made the cut.  The only reason I've watched the Duggars is, for me it's kind of nice seeing a show that isn't filled with mindless, salacious debauchery.



Maybe they thought it would be like Honey Boo Boo - so repugnant that people would watch and be completely grossed out.  Surprise!

I think they did that with Duck Dynasty as well.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> Maybe they thought it would be like Honey Boo Boo - so repugnant that people would watch and be completely grossed out.  Surprise!
> 
> I think they did that with Duck Dynasty as well.



I find watching this reality stuff to be pretty mindless anyway.  If they took every one of these shows off the air it wouldn't cause me to lose a wink of sleep.  What's more mindless is the knee-jerk reactions to incidents that really have no bearing on anything other than the extreme minority.  I'm astounded that this extreme minority dictates what happens to an entire country.


----------



## officeguy

PsyOps said:


> The only reason I've watched the Duggars is, for me it's kind of nice seeing a show that isn't filled with mindless, salacious debauchery.



Well, looks like the mindless debauchery in those circles happens behind closed doors.


----------



## PsyOps

officeguy said:


> Well, looks like the mindless debauchery in those circles happens behind closed doors.



What are you talking about?


----------



## officeguy

PsyOps said:


> What are you talking about?



The entire hubub is about a 14yo engaging in what could be described as deboucherous behavior. Outwardly pius communities have no shortage of hanky panky if nobody is looking.


----------



## GURPS

officeguy said:


> Outwardly pius communities have no shortage of hanky panky if nobody is looking.






your point was what?


----------



## vraiblonde

officeguy said:


> Well, looks like the mindless debauchery in those circles happens behind closed doors.



You seriously consider a 14 year old boy copping a feel to be "mindless debauchery"?


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> You seriously consider a 14 year old boy copping a feel to be "mindless debauchery"?



That was my thought.  Sometimes I think people are more critical of these things when it happens with Christians.  How could 'pious' Christians allow such a thing to happen?  What hypocrites running around preaching to all of us how to live sinless lives while they have a child molester among them.

Completely displaced criticism if you ask me.


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> That was my thought.  Sometimes I think people are more critical of these things when it happens with Christians.  How could 'pious' Christians allow such a thing to happen?  What hypocrites running around preaching to all of us how to live sinless lives while they have a child molester among them.
> 
> Completely displaced criticism if you ask me.



See, there it is again.  Why are you saying "child molester" when my understanding is that the girls were roughly his own age and not children?

But you're right that some peoples' hatred for anything religious makes them crazy when a person of the Christian faith shows any sort of human behavior.  For folks who preach tolerance and diversity, they sure are narrow minded when it comes to the faithful.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> See, there it is again.  Why are you saying "child molester" when my understanding is that the girls were roughly his own age and not children?
> 
> But you're right that some peoples' hatred for anything religious makes them crazy when a person of the Christian faith shows any sort of human behavior.  For folks who preach tolerance and diversity, they sure are narrow minded when it comes to the faithful.



I’m not calling it ‘child molestation’; I am being rhetorical commenting on others (like officeguy seemingly) calling it child molestation.  I don’t know how the law reads, but I doubt child molestation would apply to a 14 year old fondling a 10 year old (or whatever age).

This subject with the Duggars is nothing more than an opportunity for the anti-Christian zealots to go after the faith to say “see… these Christians are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites and are just hiding behind their faith to commit crimes”.


----------



## GURPS

vraiblonde said:


> But you're right that some peoples' hatred for anything religious makes them crazy when a person of the Christian faith shows any sort of human behavior.  For folks who preach tolerance and diversity, they sure are narrow minded when it comes to the faithful.






nasty Christians cannot lecture me ... they are just as bad or worse 


just because someone says 

'I believe Christ died for my sins' 

that does not them better or any less, libel to have family problems ... although many [Christians] have brought the condemnation down on themselves ... acting superior to others


----------



## GURPS

PsyOps said:


> This who subject with the Duggars is nothing more than an opportunity for the anti-Christian zealots to go after the faith to say “see… these Christians are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites and are just hiding behind their faith to commit crimes”.


----------



## PsyOps

GURPS said:


> nasty Christians cannot lecture me ... they are just as bad or worse
> 
> 
> just because someone says
> 
> 'I believe Christ died for my sins'
> 
> that does not them better or any less, libel to have family problems ... although many [Christians] have brought the condemnation down on themselves ... acting superior to others



And that’s the thing that folks don’t get about Christians… the typical Christian doesn’t go around with a judgmental finger asserting they are, or even pretending to be, better than anyone else.  The vast majority of Christians are probably more aware of their failings and ‘sins’ than non-Christians, and are humbled by their flaws.  The misinterpretation of Christians pointing out ‘sin’ as being judgmental is a problem the anti’s have due to their antipathy for be told they are sinful.  People generally don’t like being told they are flawed in their behavior.


----------



## officeguy

vraiblonde said:


> You seriously consider a 14 year old boy copping a feel to be "mindless debauchery"?



If this was not consensual, then yes. A young man letting the little brain do the thinking. 

This was not 'cupping a feel', this involved several incidents. 

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/may/23/silence-led-to-no-case-for-duggar-20150/

At the time of the events, rather than involving the authorities, it was handled by the elders of the church. Oddly enough, the principal behind the rehab facility where Josh was sent later had to resign among molestation allegations. 
The first involvement of the authorities was with a corporal in the Arkansas state police. The question is whether he would have been a mandated reporter and failed to act according to his employers policies. Well, probably doesn't matter now that he is serving 56 years for child pornography charges in a unrelated case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-molestation-allegations-against-josh-duggar/

It is a big deal for a number of reasons:
- 10 years later, the same young man worked for the FRC which is in the business of telling others on how to live a godly life.
- the two-stage cover-up involving both the elders of the church and a state police officer.

Coming back to the premise of this thread. Dumbo Dunham made up some salacious stories to further her publishing career knowing well that there was no risk of any legal repercussions. No cover-up, no involvement of a prominent family values organization.

Had the family decided to lay low after those troubles, JimBob had stuck to selling commercial real estate and they hadn't decided to make their godly life a source of income, nobody would have cared about the whole story beyond maybe some local gossip.


----------



## Hijinx

officeguy said:


> If this was not consensual, then yes. A young man letting the little brain do the thinking.



Gee: That's never happened before.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> See, there it is again.  Why are you saying "child molester" when my understanding is that the girls were roughly his own age and not children?
> 
> But you're right that some peoples' hatred for anything religious makes them crazy when a person of the Christian faith shows any sort of human behavior.  For folks who preach tolerance and diversity, they sure are narrow minded when it comes to the faithful.



The age of the molester doesn't change if a child is a victim of molestation or not. I also don't see anybody using this to slam Christianity. 

And again, you guys keep blowing this off as no big deal, but we both know you would be signing a different tune if this happened to your daughter.


----------



## officeguy

Midnightrider said:


> And again, you guys keep blowing this off as no big deal, but we both know you would be signing a different tune if this happened to your daughter.



That is one of the odd parts of the story. To which extent did the parents of the girls he molested know about this. Did the elders use their position of authority to stop them from going to the police ?


----------



## GURPS

officeguy said:


> It is a big deal for a number of reasons:
> - 10 years later, the same young man worked for the FRC which is in the business of telling others on how to live a godly life.
> - the two-stage cover-up involving both the elders of the church and a state police officer.




and how exactly is this a coverup ?


----------



## GURPS

PsyOps said:


> And that’s the thing that folks don’t get about Christians… the typical Christian doesn’t go around with a judgmental finger asserting they are, or even pretending to be, better than anyone else.  The vast majority of Christians are probably more aware of their failings and ‘sins’ than non-Christians, and are humbled by their flaws.  The misinterpretation of Christians pointing out ‘sin’ as being judgmental is a problem the anti’s have due to their antipathy for be told they are sinful.  People generally don’t like being told they are flawed in their behavior.





http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...de.christians.deal.josh.duggar.past/54539.htm


----------



## PsyOps

GURPS said:


> http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...de.christians.deal.josh.duggar.past/54539.htm



Again, for the anti-Christian zealots confession, asking for forgiveness, and being transparent about it is never good enough.  They want judgment!  They want justice against such hypocrites.  They want heads to roll.  This is more just cause to take the Christian faith down.

I am willing to be any damn one of these Christian-haters, if they had a son at 14 that did this, they'd force that boy to apologize, then ground him for the summer.  And that would be that.  They would balk at any outside criticism.  I told my wife a while back when we watch one of those episodes that it was inevitable that at least one of them would turn out bad or do something that would be considered against their teachings and faith.  So, I'm not surprised that at least one of them has lived up to the apparent standards the parents set.  

I told the story on here a while ago that I was close friends with an ordained minister who ran a local Christian organization.  They raised their kids in a very similar manner as the Duggars.  They home schooled.  They sheltered their kids from too many outside influences.  Then when the oldest kid was too old to be home schooled, they put him in public schools.  Almost immediately the kid got involved in a bad crowd of kids, started doing drugs, and ended up in jail.  It was very devastating to the family; as it would be for even non-Christian families.  They got him in rehab, and now he's a missionary running missions in central and south America.  These people (the family in my story and the Duggars) never look at their lives as greater than anyone else.  They have no 'holier than thou' mentality.  These incidents don't tear them down.  They are humbled by them and their faith is strengthened because they know adversity is a fact of life.  While the antis run around shaking their judgmental fingers at the Duggars, they forget that they complain the most about how judgmental Christians are; when they really aren't.


----------



## officeguy

GURPS said:


> and how exactly is this a coverup ?



The coverup is that back when this happened, the elders of the church arranged for the perpetrator and the victims to receive counseling rather than involving the juvenile justice system. The second stage of the coverup was when a state trooper was informally involved and he failed to act in a timely manner once he received information of a criminal act. When in 2006, the allegations finally made it to the Springdale PD, the statute of limitations had expired as the involvement of the trooper started the clock. The elders may be able to weasel out of their obligation to report abuse as the statute says 'clergy member', but a police officer who is informed of a crime against minors doesn't have that option. 

The outcome would probably not have been any different. Juvi authorities would have sent Josh to counseling and it would have been expunged once he reached the age of majority. By all accounts, he managed to move past this, no reason to believe that the outcome would have been any better had the juvi authorities been involved. They are notorious for their f###-ups, so I can understand why a religious community would try to handle this internally. But then again, when the catholic church handled their abuse problem internally, everyone got upset, so I guess there is no way to win this one.


----------



## Hijinx

officeguy said:


> The coverup is that back when this happened, the elders of the church arranged for the perpetrator and the victims to receive counseling rather than involving the juvenile justice system. The second stage of the coverup was when a state trooper was informally involved and he failed to act in a timely manner once he received information of a criminal act. When in 2006, the allegations finally made it to the Springdale PD, the statute of limitations had expired as the involvement of the trooper started the clock. The elders may be able to weasel out of their obligation to report abuse as the statute says 'clergy member', but a police officer who is informed of a crime against minors doesn't have that option.
> 
> The outcome would probably not have been any different. Juvi authorities would have sent Josh to counseling and it would have been expunged once he reached the age of majority. By all accounts, he managed to move past this, no reason to believe that the outcome would have been any better had the juvi authorities been involved. They are notorious for their f###-ups, so I can understand why a religious community would try to handle this internally. But then again, when the catholic church handled their abuse problem internally, everyone got upset, so I guess there is no way to win this one.



The Catholic Church never never handled it at all. They just hid the pedophiles and that is why the Church is upset.


----------



## officeguy

Hijinx said:


> The Catholic Church never never handled it at all. They just hid the pedophiles and that is why the Church is upset.



There was a pattern to it. The first two allegations, they just moved the priests around to new congregations. If they couldn't keep it in the pants, they were moved to some nursing home ministry where they wouldn't have altar boys or youth groups. If that didn't work, they were sent to one of their 'perv holding tanks' (officially 'treatment center'). Many other churches do the same with their drinking or drugged out clergy.


----------



## PsyOps

officeguy said:


> The coverup is that back when this happened, the elders of the church arranged for the perpetrator and the victims to receive counseling rather than involving the juvenile justice system. The second stage of the coverup was when a state trooper was informally involved and he failed to act in a timely manner once he received information of a criminal act. When in 2006, the allegations finally made it to the Springdale PD, the statute of limitations had expired as the involvement of the trooper started the clock. The elders may be able to weasel out of their obligation to report abuse as the statute says 'clergy member', but a police officer who is informed of a crime against minors doesn't have that option.
> 
> The outcome would probably not have been any different. Juvi authorities would have sent Josh to counseling and it would have been expunged once he reached the age of majority. By all accounts, he managed to move past this, no reason to believe that the outcome would have been any better had the juvi authorities been involved. They are notorious for their f###-ups, so I can understand why a religious community would try to handle this internally. But then again, when the catholic church handled their abuse problem internally, everyone got upset, so I guess there is no way to win this one.



The Duggars didn’t even have to get the ‘religious community’ involved, let alone the cops.  He was 14 for crying out loud!  You’re acting like this was some crazed 23 year old sex offender molesting a 13 year old.  This is the sort of thing that should be dealt with between the families.  Jim Bob makes Josh apologize to family.  Jim Bob punishes Josh.  DONE!   I think this is what’s so ####ed up about our society today… we want to call the cops on everything our kids do wrong, when all we need is some stinking parenting.

Is there anything you feel didn’t work in Josh’s counseling, that he someone continued with his depraved behavior for the reason you’re taking this extreme position?


----------



## Hijinx

officeguy said:


> There was a pattern to it. The first two allegations, they just moved the priests around to new congregations. If they couldn't keep it in the pants, they were moved to some nursing home ministry where they wouldn't have altar boys or youth groups. If that didn't work, they were sent to one of their 'perv holding tanks' (officially 'treatment center'). Many other churches do the same with their drinking or drugged out clergy.



The way to solve the Pedo problem in any Church is to call the Sheriff and press charges. Don't fool around with clergy, Bishops or Cardinals and don't let them talk you out of the charges by asking that you protect the Church.  Protect your child.


----------



## Midnightrider

Hijinx said:


> The Catholic Church never never handled it at all. They just hid the pedophiles and that is why the Church is upset.



So it is a problem for the church to handle sexual abuse internally and not call the police? Why would that be any different for Duggar?


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> The Duggars didn’t even have to get the ‘religious community’ involved, let alone the cops.  He was 14 for crying out loud!  You’re acting like this was some crazed 23 year old sex offender molesting a 13 year old.  This is the sort of thing that should be dealt with between the families.  Jim Bob makes Josh apologize to family.  Jim Bob punishes Josh.  DONE!   I think this is what’s so ####ed up about our society today… we want to call the cops on everything our kids do wrong, when all we need is some stinking parenting.
> 
> Is there anything you feel didn’t work in Josh’s counseling, that he someone continued with his depraved behavior for the reason you’re taking this extreme position?



How about since it wasn't reported to the police we really don't know the extent of his perversion. He might not have fussed up to everything. There may be victims out there that are living with being molested who will get no justice.

Are you saying if some 14 boy touched your daughter in her sleep you wouldn't call the police?


----------



## officeguy

Hijinx said:


> The way to solve the Pedo problem in any Church is to call the Sheriff and press charges. Don't fool around with clergy, Bishops or Cardinals and don't let them talk you out of the charges by asking that you protect the Church.  Protect your child.



Agreed.


----------



## officeguy

PsyOps said:


> The Duggars didn’t even have to get the ‘religious community’ involved, let alone the cops.  He was 14 for crying out loud!  You’re acting like this was some crazed 23 year old sex offender molesting a 13 year old.  This is the sort of thing that should be dealt with between the families.  Jim Bob makes Josh apologize to family.  Jim Bob punishes Josh.  DONE!   I think this is what’s so ####ed up about our society today… we want to call the cops on everything our kids do wrong, when all we need is some stinking parenting.



If your 12 year old daughter came to you and told you about what happened, you wouldn't let it go with a dad to dad talk.


----------



## PsyOps

midnightrider said:


> so it is a problem for the church to handle sexual abuse internally and not call the police? Why would that be any different for duggar?



*because the kid was 14 fondling other 14 year olds, not 65 raping 14 year olds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> *because the kid was 14 fondling other 14 year olds, not 65 raping 16 year olds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



Do I need to ask in big bold letters?

Are you saying if some 14 boy touched your daughter in her sleep you wouldn't call the police?


BTW, I don't think they have said how old the various girls were or exactly what constituted what you so easily dismiss as 'fondling'.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Do I need to ask in big bold letters?
> 
> Are you saying if some 14 boy touched your daughter in her sleep you wouldn't call the police?
> 
> 
> BTW, I don't think they have said how old the various girls were or exactly what constituted what you so easily dismiss as 'fondling'.



You seem to have very little understanding of the mind of a 14 year old.  But since you NEVER like to do your own homework….. HERE is the police report.  Crime/Incident:  Forcible Fondling.

I’ll answer your trap question from both sides.  But I will qualify my comments with – I have raised two kids; a boy and a girl.  Both are now adults.  So I am qualified to provide this answer.

If my son had done such a thing, I would have marched him over to each girl’s home and he would not only apologize to the girls, but he would apologize to the parents.  Then, if I felt it was necessary, I would get him help.  Otherwise, he’s getting locked in his room for a very long time with some very interesting books to read, in which he will write reports on, until I was absolutely certain he got the message about what he had done wrong.  It’s about parenting.  It’s about PARENTS holding their children accountable.  I happen to think this is a far better tool for correcting your child than having then deemed sex offenders.

If it were my daughter this had happened to, I would take her to the boy’s house, reveal this to his parents, and demand an apology and that something will be done about this bad behavior.  If the parents and boy was defiant, then I am likely to tell them to expect the police at their door soon.  But I would have at least made the effort to remedy the situation internally.  

Unlike you… I have no desire to ruin a 14 year old kid’s life when these things can easily be handled without having him deemed a sex offender at 14.  I understand that a kid at 14 is going to do stupid things that they don’t completely understand the consequences of.  It’s my job as a parent to make sure they get it.  The law is only going to PUNISH; not teach lessons.  

Josh Duggar not only apologized, but he asked for each girl’s forgiveness; which he got.  Josh Duggar went on with his life, the problem dealt with; but now, almost 10 years later folks want to dredge #### up because it’s an opportunity to bash Christians; that is at the root of all of this.


----------



## LibertyBeacon

PsyOps said:


> But since you NEVER like to do your own homework…..





I've had my Recommended Daily Allowance of irony for the day.

G'nite.


----------



## Bann

PsyOps said:


> *because the kid was 14 fondling other 14 year olds, not 65 raping 14 year olds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*





PsyOps said:


> You seem to have very little understanding of the mind of a 14 year old.  But since you NEVER like to do your own homework….. HERE is the police report.  Crime/Incident:  Forcible Fondling.
> 
> I’ll answer your trap question from both sides.  But I will qualify my comments with – I have raised two kids; a boy and a girl.  Both are now adults.  So I am qualified to provide this answer.
> 
> If my son had done such a thing, I would have marched him over to each girl’s home and he would not only apologize to the girls, but he would apologize to the parents.  Then, if I felt it was necessary, I would get him help.  Otherwise, he’s getting locked in his room for a very long time with some very interesting books to read, in which he will write reports on, until I was absolutely certain he got the message about what he had done wrong.  It’s about parenting.  It’s about PARENTS holding their children accountable.  I happen to think this is a far better tool for correcting your child than having then deemed sex offenders.
> 
> If it were my daughter this had happened to, I would take her to the boy’s house, reveal this to his parents, and demand an apology and that something will be done about this bad behavior.  If the parents and boy was defiant, then I am likely to tell them to expect the police at their door soon.  But I would have at least made the effort to remedy the situation internally.
> 
> Unlike you… I have no desire to ruin a 14 year old kid’s life when these things can easily be handled without having him deemed a sex offender at 14.  I understand that a kids at 14 is going to do stupid things that they don’t completely understand the consequences of.  It’s my job as a parent to make sure they get it.  The law is only going to PUNISH; not teach lessons.
> 
> Josh Duggar not only apologized, but he asked for each girl’s forgiveness; which he got.  Josh Duggar went on with his life, the problem dealt with; but now, almost 10 years later folks want to dredge #### up because it’s an opportunity to bash Christians; that is at the root of all of this.







I agree with Psy and Vrai.


----------



## PsyOps

LibertyBeacon said:


> I've had my Recommended Daily Allowance of irony for the day.
> 
> G'nite.



Well, we can always count on you for substance.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

My ole lady is the same age as I am and I grope her in her sleep all the time hoping for some morning or middle of the night lovin,  she usually pushes me away, says get the f off me, etc depending on her mood (it even occasionally works) am I a sex offender?


----------



## This_person

PsyOps said:


> Well, we can always count on you for substance.


You realize that if you keep using facts, logic, and making good sense from a personal-responsibility point of view they're only going to keep arguing, right?


----------



## PeoplesElbow

PsyOps said:


> You seem to have very little understanding of the mind of a 14 year old.  But since you NEVER like to do your own homework….. HERE is the police report.  Crime/Incident:  Forcible Fondling.
> 
> I’ll answer your trap question from both sides.  But I will qualify my comments with – I have raised two kids; a boy and a girl.  Both are now adults.  So I am qualified to provide this answer.
> 
> If my son had done such a thing, I would have marched him over to each girl’s home and he would not only apologize to the girls, but he would apologize to the parents.  Then, if I felt it was necessary, I would get him help.  Otherwise, he’s getting locked in his room for a very long time with some very interesting books to read, in which he will write reports on, until I was absolutely certain he got the message about what he had done wrong.  It’s about parenting.  It’s about PARENTS holding their children accountable.  I happen to think this is a far better tool for correcting your child than having then deemed sex offenders.
> 
> If it were my daughter this had happened to, I would take her to the boy’s house, reveal this to his parents, and demand an apology and that something will be done about this bad behavior.  If the parents and boy was defiant, then I am likely to tell them to expect the police at their door soon.  But I would have at least made the effort to remedy the situation internally.
> 
> Unlike you… I have no desire to ruin a 14 year old kid’s life when these things can easily be handled without having him deemed a sex offender at 14.  I understand that a kid at 14 is going to do stupid things that they don’t completely understand the consequences of.  It’s my job as a parent to make sure they get it.  The law is only going to PUNISH; not teach lessons.
> 
> Josh Duggar not only apologized, but he asked for each girl’s forgiveness; which he got.  Josh Duggar went on with his life, the problem dealt with; but now, almost 10 years later folks want to dredge #### up because it’s an opportunity to bash Christians; that is at the root of all of this.



What if it was your daughter that did it to the boy?


----------



## LibertyBeacon

PsyOps said:


> Well, we can always count on you for substance.


----------



## officeguy

Midnightrider said:


> BTW, I don't think they have said how old the various girls were or exactly what constituted what you so easily dismiss as 'fondling'.



The redacted police report is online. Of course, the investigation was delayed by 4 years, most of the girls testimony is bound to be contaminated by that point. It is pretty clear that the 'treatment' Josh received was simply to be sent away to Little Rock to work for someone doing remodeling work. The duct-tape and baling wire approach to juvenile sex offender treatment.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> You seem to have very little understanding of the mind of a 14 year old.  But since you NEVER like to do your own homework….. HERE is the police report.  Crime/Incident:  Forcible Fondling.
> 
> I’ll answer your trap question from both sides.  But I will qualify my comments with – I have raised two kids; a boy and a girl.  Both are now adults.  So I am qualified to provide this answer.
> 
> If my son had done such a thing, I would have marched him over to each girl’s home and he would not only apologize to the girls, but he would apologize to the parents.  Then, if I felt it was necessary, I would get him help.  Otherwise, he’s getting locked in his room for a very long time with some very interesting books to read, in which he will write reports on, until I was absolutely certain he got the message about what he had done wrong.  It’s about parenting.  It’s about PARENTS holding their children accountable.  I happen to think this is a far better tool for correcting your child than having then deemed sex offenders.
> 
> If it were my daughter this had happened to, I would take her to the boy’s house, reveal this to his parents, and demand an apology and that something will be done about this bad behavior.  If the parents and boy was defiant, then I am likely to tell them to expect the police at their door soon.  But I would have at least made the effort to remedy the situation internally.
> 
> Unlike you… I have no desire to ruin a 14 year old kid’s life when these things can easily be handled without having him deemed a sex offender at 14.  I understand that a kids at 14 is going to do stupid things that they don’t completely understand the consequences of.  It’s my job as a parent to make sure they get it.  The law is only going to PUNISH; not teach lessons.
> 
> Josh Duggar not only apologized, but he asked for each girl’s forgiveness; which he got.  Josh Duggar went on with his life, the problem dealt with; but now, almost 10 years later folks want to dredge #### up because it’s an opportunity to bash Christians; that is at the root of all of this.



that police report makes things worse, not better IMO. All it shows is that this guy was a serial toucher and his victims varied in age. For all we know he touched a lot more kids and no one knew. That's why it should be a police matter.

And  am calling BS. I am pretty sure that you, like me, would be more protective than that of your little girl. There is no way you take your little girl to face her offender and give him the chance to end it with an apology. Its a ####ing sexual assault.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> How about since it wasn't reported to the police we really don't know the extent of his perversion. He might not have fussed up to everything. There may be victims out there that are living with being molested who will get no justice.



Wow, talk about projecting and making #### up.

Whatever.  There's no talking to you.  Now you've made up a whole slew of fictitious victims who have yet to come forward, so yeah - you've jumped the fridge with this and become officially ridiculous.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> And  am calling BS. I am pretty sure that you, like me, would be more protective than that of your little girl. There is no way you take your little girl to face her offender and give him the chance to end it with an apology. Its a ####ing sexual assault.



See... even when I tell you what *I* would do you reject it.  You just want to be argue just to argue and be right just to be right.  Like Vrai said (and I said) you will make your own facts up just to be right.

This is why I refuse to get mired up in your endless cycle of nonsense.


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> So it is a problem for the church to handle sexual abuse internally and not call the police? Why would that be any different for Duggar?



There is a difference between a grown man under cover of religion molesting a child be it boy or girl, and a 14 year old boy feeling up another 14 year old, but you would not understand that.  Or maybe you do but just like to argue.


----------



## GURPS

> *The Left is Frothing, Raving and Losing Its Mind Over the Fall of House Duggar*
> The Left and the world share a visceral hatred of God and Christians while defending their own heroes
> 
> 
> Fast forward to 2015, and an extremely painful situation for a very public Christian family.
> 
> I dove headfirst into the cauldron of insanity over the weekend with three posts on my personal blog about Josh Duggar (here, here, and here).  The first post went viral, causing no end of awful comments and tweets.
> 
> I won’t go into the contents of my posts here—Josh Duggar did some really horrible stuff to his sisters 12 years ago and avoided any real punishment—but the fact that he appears to have straightened up and given his life over to Christ threw the left into “tilt.”
> 
> _    There will be distortions.  Oh yes, the distortions and accusations have barely even begun.  They’ll call him a serial molester.  They’ll extend the accusations to his father Jim Bob, who reported the incident to the police himself, according to the New York Daily News.  They’ll paint the whole family as Branch Davidians and Jim Bob as David Koresh._​
> After dealing with Twitter trolls, I finally asked one question I thought would open a fruitful conversation:  “Seriously to the #JoshDuggar trolls: what would you like to see happen?”
> 
> I got one useful answer (amid a whole bunch of profanity-laced tirades and threats to rape my wife):





Roman P anyone :shrug: or Whoopie G 'Rape Rape'


----------



## tblwdc

Hijinx said:


> Show me a boy at 16 who hasn't tried to feel up a girl and I will show you a man who has a problem with his sexual identity.
> Now a sleeping girl is a little creepy, but boys engaging in a little breast feeling or fingering is pretty normal.
> The jails would be full of them if prosecuted.



I believe the information is he was fourteen, (maybe it continued to 16) and some of those girls were his younger sisters.  I believe I could show you numerous people who have not done that.


----------



## vraiblonde

tblwdc said:


> I believe I could show you numerous people who have not done that.



Of course, but it's also not unheard of among siblings.

And really, who gives a crap about this 10 years later when by all accounts there have been no repeat incidents and the ?  Why is this a thing now?  His father was the one who turned him in to the police, so why are the tards saying there was some cover up?  

You have to wonder why the usual suspects are so wrapped around the axle about this.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> Of course, but it's also not unheard of among siblings.
> 
> And really, who gives a crap about this 10 years later when by all accounts there have been no repeat incidents and the ?  Why is this a thing now?  His father was the one who turned him in to the police, so why are the tards saying there was some cover up?
> 
> You have to wonder why the usual suspects are so wrapped around the axle about this.



Christian = hypocrite... even if it's a 14 year old.  Hang 'em all!


----------



## tblwdc

Midnightrider said:


> Which one of her stories are we supposed to believe?
> 
> But like I said, if he did it he should be prosecuted. Apparently she filed an affidavit saying he didn't, so that's going to be a hard one to prove....



I don't think we have to believe any of hers, but we could believe the people she saw and told after the rape.  The nurse who found her distraught doesn't seem to have any reason to lie.  It doesn't seem probable she would make that up, then concoct a false story decades later.  Your mind is made up however, I don't suppose you would look at it objectively.


----------



## tblwdc

vraiblonde said:


> Of course, but it's also not unheard of among siblings.
> 
> And really, who gives a crap about this 10 years later when by all accounts there have been no repeat incidents and the ?  Why is this a thing now?  His father was the one who turned him in to the police, so why are the tards saying there was some cover up?
> 
> You have to wonder why the usual suspects are so wrapped around the axle about this.



I would agree with you that behavior such as that is normal adolescent curiosity.  Doing it to multiple other children however, in my opinion, goes outside of the scope of normality.

Perhaps the report I read was wrong, but it indicated the father had a friend of his who was a state trooper speak to the boy.  When on duty officers attempted to speak with the children, the father blocked that access.  The report could be wrong, but that is what I read.


----------



## Hijinx

vraiblonde said:


> Of course, but it's also not unheard of among siblings.
> 
> And really, who gives a crap about this 10 years later when by all accounts there have been no repeat incidents and the ?  Why is this a thing now?  His father was the one who turned him in to the police, so why are the tards saying there was some cover up?
> 
> You have to wonder why the usual suspects are so wrapped around the axle about this.



I don't have to wonder at all. It's the old jealous Bs about bringing someone down.
The guy is doing well now and the a-holes cannot stand that, they have to bring him down.
Didn't we see it with Romney
Didn't we see it with something as stupid as spelling potato wrong with a Vice president?
We see the idiot  Joe Biden daily making stupid remarks, but a republican spells potato wrong and the a-holes jump all over him.

It's just the small people who do not want to see anyone get ahead unless that person is a liberal.
We saw this when Fritz ran for States Attorney. A few enemies bringing up BS to make their miserable lives feel better by bringing down someone else.

These same people want criminals to be allowed to vote because they have changed their lives in prison, but a person who has not been to prison cannot change, they want to see the crucifixion.  It isn't hard to understand them. They are pathetic a-holes.


----------



## sockgirl77

vraiblonde said:


> I am convinced, however, that Bruce is only becoming a woman so he can hit from the ladies' tees.



 I am just now getting around to reading this thread and this happens to be the only entertaining post that I have read so far.


----------



## PsyOps

tblwdc said:


> Perhaps the report I read was wrong, but it indicated the father had a friend of his who was a state trooper speak to the boy.  When on duty officers attempted to speak with the children, the father blocked that access.  The report could be wrong, but that is what I read.



Unless the cops are going to arrest my child, read him his rights, and charge him with a crime they aren't talking to my child.  That's not covering up, that's protecting my child's rights.


----------



## tblwdc

PsyOps said:


> Unless the cops are going to arrest my child, read him his rights, and charge him with a crime they aren't talking to my child.  That's not covering up, that's protecting my child's rights.



I don't think it was just the son, but the other potential victim's the father would not let the police speak with.


----------



## Bushy23

PsyOps said:


> Unless the cops are going to arrest my child, read him his rights, and charge him with a crime they aren't talking to my child.  That's not covering up, that's protecting my child's rights.



Even if you know your kid is diddling children??  Man, you are a real hero.


----------



## PsyOps

tblwdc said:


> I don't think it was just the son, but the other potential victim's the father would not let the police speak with.



Are you saying Jim Bob wouldn't let the cops talk to the victims?  How does that work?


----------



## PsyOps

Bushy23 said:


> Even if you know your kid is diddling children??  Man, you are a real hero.



I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic or not; so I don't know how to respond.


----------



## vraiblonde

Bushy23 said:


> Even if you know your kid is diddling children??  Man, you are a real hero.



Why do you have such hatred for this person, whom you don't know, that you are making up weird crap to be outraged over?


----------



## Amused_despair

Either Duggar or Dunham, I wouldn't give a glass of water to either if they were drowning.  Once a pedophile always one.  That's why we make laws to keep them from handing out Halloween candy or living near schools, why they have to register forever.  Because they will always be a pedophile.  I wouldn't trust a child alone with either one.  If you think just because someone is religious that all of a sudden that changes everything.... there are plenty of examples of religious people who have used their religion to hide their attacks on children and adults.

I think the reason for the uproar is because Americans love to tear into hypocrites.  Whether it is a politician who runs on a platform of family values and then is caught with his mistress or a politician who is anti-gay and also looking for dates with others of his sex.


----------



## PsyOps

Amused_despair said:


> Either Duggar or Dunham, I wouldn't give a glass of water to either if they were drowning.  Once a pedophile always one.



How do you people conclude that a 14 year is a pedophile?


----------



## PsyOps

Amused_despair said:


> I think the reason for the uproar is because Americans love to tear into hypocrites.



It took a while, but there it is.  THIS is what it's about... vilifying Christians, even if they can use a 14 year old to get their feeble point across.


----------



## Hijinx

Bushy23 said:


> Even if you know your kid is diddling children??  Man, you are a real hero.



What child did this man Diddle when he was a Juvenile himself.
I read he felt a couple of girls up, now you accuse him of diddling them.
Must have been some pretty light feeling too as they didn't wake up.


----------



## Hijinx

PsyOps said:


> It took a while, but there it is.  THIS is what it's about... vilifying Christians, even if they can use a 14 year old to get their feeble point across.



Yeah: That's a big part of it. Amazing isn't it that most of those doing the criticizing will vote for Hillary, who it is alleged had affairs with Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and Huma Abedin. The same Hillary who stayed with her husband after he dildoed an intern with a cigar, and whacked off in the sink while doing it. Bill wasn't a teen-aged juvenile when he did it either.

And they have the balls to call others Hypocrite's.


----------



## Amused_despair

PsyOps said:


> How do you people conclude that a 14 year is a pedophile?



When the victims would have been between the ages of 4 and 11: yes, a pedophile


----------



## Amused_despair

PsyOps said:


> It took a while, but there it is.  THIS is what it's about... vilifying Christians, even if they can use a 14 year old to get their feeble point across.



I think it is more along the lines of what Pappy Boyington used to say "Show me a hero and I will show you a bum"


----------



## Amused_despair

Hijinx said:


> Yeah: That's a big part of it. Amazing isn't it that most of those doing the criticizing will vote for Hillary, who it is alleged had affairs with Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and Huma Abedin. The same Hillary who stayed with her husband after he dildoed an intern with a cigar, and whacked off in the sink while doing it. Bill wasn't a teen-aged juvenile when he did it either.
> 
> And they have the balls to call others Hypocrite's.



Couldn't it also be said that those who would vilify Bill Clinton or even the lady from Honey Boo-Boo would now defend Josh Duggar simply because he is a Christian?  Hypocrites as well?


----------



## Hijinx

Amused_despair said:


> I think it is more along the lines of what Pappy Boyington used to say "Show me a hero and I will show you a bum"



I think Boyington was speaking of himself, and he was right, Some heroes were bums, and others were great men.

It is mostly the situation and the reaction to it that separates a hero from being just another person.


----------



## tblwdc

PsyOps said:


> Are you saying Jim Bob wouldn't let the cops talk to the victims?  How does that work?



That is what the article I read said.  I'll see if I could find it.


----------



## PsyOps

Amused_despair said:


> Couldn't it also be said that those who would vilify Bill Clinton or even the lady from Honey Boo-Boo would now defend Josh Duggar simply because he is a Christian?  Hypocrites as well?



You're completely off base.  No one is defending what Josh Duggar did.  Folks are defending how the Duggar parents dealt with it.


----------



## PsyOps

tblwdc said:


> That is what the article I read said.  I'll see if I could find it.



Let me clarify that I am assuming some of the girls are not Duggars.  We really don't know who the victims were; it's assumed some were Josh's sisters.


----------



## tblwdc

tblwdc said:


> That is what the article I read said.  I'll see if I could find it.



I would say the article I read was wrong.  Here is a link to the original police report which seems to have interviews of the victims.  I'd say that this wasn't an innocent teen feeling someone up though, he's a predatory type who probably should have been taken out of the  home.

http://imgur.com/a/zqPMi#HFRTfSE


----------



## PsyOps

tblwdc said:


> I would say the article I read was wrong.  Here is a link to the original police report which seems to have interviews of the victims.  I'd say that this wasn't an innocent teen feeling someone up though, he's a predatory type who probably should have been taken out of the  home.
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/zqPMi#HFRTfSE



I see... so the way the family dealt with it gleaned no positive results?  Josh continued with his predatory ways, and is still molesting children to this day?

You know, if he kept a long track record of this, even after getting help and being disciplined by the parents, I would agree.  But this is not how things turned out.  You people want to deem this guy a pedophile, put him on a sex offenders list, and strip his own children from him over something that happened when he was 14 and over 10 years ago.  This isn't rational on any level.

FWIW... According to the original InTouch report, Josh apologized to the girls and they forgave him.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> Wow, talk about projecting and making #### up.
> 
> Whatever.  There's no talking to you.  Now you've made up a whole slew of fictitious victims who have yet to come forward, so yeah - you've jumped the fridge with this and become officially ridiculous.


I'm not making anythīng up. I am saying since tis wasn't investigated at the time there is the possibility that he didn't confess to everything he did. Are you saying there is no possibility that any other girls were also molested?
Funny how you want to defend someone who molested his sisters and at least one other girl. Well, no it isn't funny. Its sad


Hijinx said:


> There is a difference between a grown man under cover of religion molesting a child be it boy or girl, and a 14 year old boy feeling up another 14 year old, but you would not understand that.  Or maybe you do but just like to argue.



This was not two kids petting, it was a teenage boy who molested his younger sisters. To me that's just as bad as what those old priests were accused of.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> I see... so the way the family dealt with it gleaned no positive results?  Josh continued with his predatory ways, and is still molesting children to this day?
> 
> You know, if he kept a long track record of this, even after getting help and being disciplined by the parents, I would agree.  But this is not how things turned out.  You people want to deem this guy a pedophile, put him on a sex offenders list, and strip his own children from him over something that happened when he was 14 and over 10 years ago.  This isn't rational on any level.
> 
> FWIW... According to the original InTouch report, Josh apologized to the girls and they forgave him.


What would you expect his sisters to do when the parents are telling them its all ok?


All we know is that he hasn't been caught. Who knows what he has done. I know I don't, and according to the parents they solved the problem by not giving him the opportunity. Its not like he came back from his reeducation and was trusted with the girls. 


PsyOps said:


> See... even when I tell you what *I* would do you reject it.  You just want to be argue just to argue and be right just to be right.  Like Vrai said (and I said) you will make your own facts up just to be right.
> 
> This is why I refuse to get mired up in your endless cycle of nonsense.



I'm calling BS on your answer. Its easy to say you would not go to the police to support your position in tis argument, its another thing to take your recently molested daughter to face the person who violated her and call the issue resolved when he says 'sorry'


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> I'm calling BS on your answer. Its easy to say you would not go to the police to support your position in tis argument, its another thing to take your recently molested daughter to face the person who violated her and call the issue resolved when he says 'sorry'



So to turn this around on you... if you had a 14 year old boy doing this to girls, you'd turn your own 14 year old son into the cops, have him trumped up on child molestation charges, thrown in juvy, and branded a pedophile?


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Who knows what he has done?'


In the years, has anyone else charged or accused him?

Bringing in hypothetical new victims pretty much voids the ability to have a rational discussion.

As a side note, for those who called him a pedophile, please note that the definition of the word is an adult who finds children sexually attractive.  A minor who engages in sexual activity with other minors is not a pedophile.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> So to turn this around on you... if you had a 14 year old boy doing this to girls, you'd turn your own 14 year old son into the cops, have him trumped up on child molestation charges, thrown in juvy, and branded a pedophile?



I would take him to the police if the situation was the same. These wouldn't have been trumped up charges. Duggar did it. Even if you excuse it when it happens in our own family, which I wouldn't any more than once, he touched a girl that wasn't a member of the family. The police should have been involved. If he turned things around the way he apparently has then he would have had all of those charges expunged. The end result could have been the same, or not. Who knows.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> I would take him to the police if the situation was the same. These wouldn't have been trumped up charges. Duggar did it. Even if you excuse it when it happens in our own family, which I wouldn't any more than once, he touched a girl that wasn't a member of the family. The police should have been involved. If he turned things around the way he apparently has then he would have had all of those charges expunged. The end result could have been the same, or not. Who knows.



Say no more...

BTW... 





PsyOps said:


> You're completely off base.  *No one is defending what Josh Duggar did*.  Folks are defending how the Duggar parents dealt with it.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> Say no more...
> 
> BTW...



I shouldn't have had to say that much. His five oldest sisters ranged from 4-12 when he was 14. 

It sure seems like some are defending his action. V and jinx in particular are trying to blow this off as normal. Its not.


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> I shouldn't have had to say that much. His five oldest sisters ranged from 4-12 when he was 14.
> 
> It sure seems like some are defending his action. V and jinx in particular are trying to blow this off as normal. Its not.



What isn't normal is your fixation with it and determination to continue on and on with it ad infinitum, after all of the opinions have been stated and it has been hashed out to death, but I guess that is normal for you. You just love to stir the excrement.


----------



## Midnightrider

Hijinx said:


> What isn't normal is your fixation with it and determination to continue on and on with it ad infinitum, after all of the opinions have been stated and it has been hashed out to death, but I guess that is normal for you. You just love to stir the excrement.



Yet here you come trolling along to keep the #### stirring


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> Yet here you come trolling along to keep the #### stirring



LMAO Touche' a-hole.


----------



## Midnightrider

Hijinx said:


> LMAO Touche' a-hole.



And you can't even do tat without calling names


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> I shouldn't have had to say that much. His five oldest sisters ranged from 4-12 when he was 14.



You said what needed to be said... you'd haul your own child off to the cops and have him trumped up in rape charges and thrown in juvy and deemed a sex offender; rather than first trying to use some parental discipline and, if needed, professional help.  It's your kid (hypothetically).  You live in that new world where we throw our kids into the legal system when they do something wrong; things that can easily be handled by the family.

But hey.. I've gotten old and can't relate to this new generation of "I'm not going take responsibility for my own kids".  In my generation it's virtually unheard of to call the cops on your own kid for something you know you can deal with at home.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> You said what needed to be said... you'd haul your own child off to the cops and have him trumped up in rape charges and thrown in juvy and deemed a sex offender; rather than first trying to use some parental discipline and, if needed, professional help.  It's your kid (hypothetically).  You live in that new world where we throw our kids into the legal system when they do something wrong; things that can easily be handled by the family.
> 
> But hey.. I've gotten old and can't relate to this new generation of "I'm not going take responsibility for my own kids".  In my generation it's virtually unheard of to call the cops on your own kid for something you know you can deal with at home.


He touched some one from outside the home. At that time it should have been dealt with outside the family. The police should have been called as he committed a serious crime. Really, if he touched the 4 year old sister as is implied by the police report, it should have been handled by the system.  
Again, all of that would have been confidentially held and if he did turn it around his record would have been expunged when he turned 18.

You give your parental discipline and professional help in addition to accepting the responsibility for breaking the law. Like I said, my kid might get a pass with me once on something serious, might not. It sounds like Duggar Sr. "found out" about this behavior a couple of different times.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> He touched some one from outside the home. At that time it should have been dealt with outside the family. The police should have been called as he committed a serious crime. Really, if he touched the 4 year old sister as is implied by the police report, it should have been handled by the system.
> 
> Again, all of that would have been confidentially held and if he did turn it around his record would have been expunged when he turned 18.



If one kid hits another, is it appropriate to charge the child with assault for that playground scuffle?

We're not talking rape here.  We're talking about a kid playing doctor with another kid, but the other kid is asleep (and sometimes never even woke up).


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> And you can't even do tat without calling names




How many times have you called me an idiot.
Hey: The name fits you.

You call names expect to be called names.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> If one kid hits another, is it appropriate to charge the child with assault for that playground scuffle?
> 
> We're not talking rape here.  We're talking about a kid playing doctor with another kid, but the other kid is asleep (and sometimes never even woke up).



Keep telling yourself that a 14yo touching a 4yo's vagina is just 'playing doctor'


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Keep telling yourself that a 14yo touching a 4yo's vagina is just 'playing doctor'



What is it?


----------



## officeguy

This_person said:


> What is it?



Sick.


----------



## Amused_despair

It is very commendable that all of you will defend this person and say that he hasn't done it since it happened 10 years ago and his victims have all forgiven him.......where were you when everyone was complaining about Roman Polanski?  Were you defending him as well?  Are you willing to go on record as agreeing with Whoopi Goldberg?


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> He touched some one from outside the home. At that time it should have been dealt with outside the family. The police should have been called as he committed a serious crime. Really, if he touched the 4 year old sister as is implied by the police report, it should have been handled by the system.
> Again, all of that would have been confidentially held and if he did turn it around his record would have been expunged when he turned 18.
> 
> You give your parental discipline and professional help in addition to accepting the responsibility for breaking the law. Like I said, my kid might get a pass with me once on something serious, might not. It sounds like Duggar Sr. "found out" about this behavior a couple of different times.



No need to go on with this.  You were honest and I appreciate that.  You’d have your own 14 year old child convicted as a child molester and deemed a child predator and pedophile; thus yanked out of school, never able to be around children again (at least until he turns 18, at which time he would likely be reevaluated to determine if he is safe to exist in normal society), and forced out of any normal life; this all from (according to the Duggar charges) ‘forcible fondling’ – aka copping a feel.

I am old school where parents took care of the problems with their kids.  You're of this new progressive thinking where even your own kid goes astray you'd call the cops on your own child.  This is just a generational thing I suppose.  And it explains why so many of us have this perception that parents just don't want to take responsibility for their own kids; they want to dump their problems on someone else - in this case you'd dump your problem on society.  Then complain about how our kids have gone so wrong today.  I don't personally begrudge this; I only say we get the society of bad kids we deserve when we, as parents, decide our own kids aren't responsibility anymore.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Keep telling yourself that a 14yo touching a 4yo's vagina is just 'playing doctor'



Where did you get that any of the 'victims' were 4?


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> Keep telling yourself that a 14yo touching a 4yo's vagina is just 'playing doctor'



Dude, you completely made that up.  There has been no allegation that he laid a hand on the 4 year old.  The report said girls, including one of his sisters.  There was no mention of how old any of them were.  So your whole basis for outrage is made up in your mind and not based on any fact.

So why don't you just admit why you hate this guy so much that you have to make up a bunch of crap about him?


----------



## Hijinx

Amused_despair said:


> It is very commendable that all of you will defend this person and say that he hasn't done it since it happened 10 years ago and his victims have all forgiven him.......where were you when everyone was complaining about Roman Polanski?  Were you defending him as well?  Are you willing to go on record as agreeing with Whoopi Goldberg?



Roman Polanski was a grown man who raped a 13 yo girl.
Not fondled mind you, but raped.

Apples and Oranges.


----------



## This_person

officeguy said:


> Sick.



Of course sexual assault on most levels is a form so sickness in the perpetrator.  But the point was to differentiate it from rape.  A kid felt up another kid, and responsible parents of both victim and perpetrator handle this amongst themselves. 

If the neighbor kid steals my kid's bike or the kids get into a playground scuffle I am not calling the police and bringing theft or assault charges on an otherwise good kid.  That's a total abdication of parental responsibility and community to me.

To MR, apparently, that's a common Tuesday for how he would parent.


----------



## PsyOps

Amused_despair said:


> It is very commendable that all of you will defend this person and say that he hasn't done it since it happened 10 years ago and his victims have all forgiven him.......where were you when everyone was complaining about Roman Polanski?  Were you defending him as well?  Are you willing to go on record as agreeing with Whoopi Goldberg?



You seem to have blinders on.  Who is defending what Josh Duggar did?  Not even the parents defended it; since they did several things to correct Josh’s behavior.  We're arguing as to what should have happened to Josh, not whether we agree with what he did.  What I defend is having the parents deal with the problem rather than deem a 14 year old a pedophile through the legal system and ruin the rest of his life.  

A lot of you seem to think a 14 year old is capable of understanding the consequences of this sort of behavior.  I would say you’ve not had to raise a child and been through that stage of their life.  It’s up to the parents to educate their own child on what they’ve done wrong and correct it.  Dragging the kid through the legal system will only result in further destruction of his life; as the legal system doesn’t give a damn about his rehab.  

There is absolutely no evidence that Josh did this since he was 14.  Believing he has is pure speculation; I assume rooted in your belief that ‘once a pedophile always a pedophile’.  Josh Duggar is now married and has 3 children.  Devoid of any evidence of subsequent ‘forcible fondling’, it seems he learned his lesson and is living an honest and honorable fatherly life.


----------



## This_person

PsyOps said:


> You seem to have blinders on.  Who is defending what Josh Duggar did?  Not even the parents defended it; since they did several things to correct Josh’s behavior.  We're arguing as to what should have happened to Josh, not whether we agree with what he did.  What I defend is having the parents deal with the problem rather than deem a 14 year old a pedophile through the legal system and ruin the rest of his life.
> 
> A lot of you seem to think a 14 year old is capable of understanding the consequences of this sort of behavior.  I would say you’ve not had to raise a child and been through that stage of their life.  It’s up to the parents to educate their own child on what they’ve done wrong and correct it.  Dragging the kid through the legal system will only result in further destruction of his life; as the legal system doesn’t give a damn about his rehab.
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence that Josh did this since he was 14.  Believing he has is pure speculation; I assume rooted in your belief that ‘once a pedophile always a pedophile’.  Josh Duggar is now married and has 3 children.  Devoid of any evidence of subsequent ‘forcible fondling’, it seems he learned his lesson and is living an honest and honorable fatherly life.


I agree with you 100% except to point out again that a 14 year old can't,  by definition, be a pedophile.


----------



## PsyOps

This_person said:


> Of course sexual assault on most levels is a form so sickness in the perpetrator.  But the point was to differentiate it from rape.  A kid felt up another kid, and responsible parents of both victim and perpetrator handle this amongst themselves.
> 
> If the neighbor kid steals my kid's bike or the kids get into a playground scuffle I am not calling the police and bringing theft or assault charges on an otherwise good kid.  That's a total abdication of parental responsibility and community to me.
> 
> To MR, apparently, that's a common Tuesday for how he would parent.



And we see this almost every day in the news.  

A kid gets out of control (A 6 YEAR OLD) in school and the cops are called.  

A parent allows their kid to go to the park alone and the cops are called rather than the parents.  

Cops are called because two kids kissed on the lips; they called it lewd and lascivious behavior.  

A 10 year old arrested and doesn't even understand why.

This is the culture we live in today.  I think it largely stems from parents sending a loud message that they don't want to be responsible for when their kids get out of control.  This is confirmed by some individuals in this forum.  Again, I guess this is a generational thing.  Parents breeding then letting the state take care of everything while the parents go on about their routines.  It's the 'blame someone or something else' mentality; shunning responsibility for their own offspring.  I think it's sad.


----------



## PsyOps

Hijinx said:


> Roman Polanski was a grown man who raped a 13 yo girl.
> Not fondled mind you, but raped.
> 
> Apples and Oranges.



I seem to remember there was a thread on Polanski and I don't recall anyone cheering this guy; except maybe nonno/nhboy and Whoopy Goldberg.


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> it seems he learned his lesson and is living an honest and honorable fatherly life.



And my take is that he grew up and stopped being a yutz, as most teenage boys do.

But I'm glad AD brought up Roman Polanski.  It's absurd to compare an adult man who drugs and rapes a 13 year old girl to a teenage boy who feels up a teenage girl, but the celebrity reaction is interesting.  The "stars" are coming out of the woodwork to condemn Josh Duggar as an evil predator, yet they didn't say a word negative about Roman Polanski - they were too busy applauding when he won his Oscar.

Anyone remember when R. Kelly was boinking 13 year olds?  Nobody seemed to care a lot about that.  

Steven Tyler actually got his 14 year old girlfriend's parents to sign over custody to him so he could keep her as a sex slave.  

The list of adult celebrities who are sex abusers is quite long, but....nah, to hell with them, let's talk about Josh Duggar when he was a teenager.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> I seem to remember there was a thread on Polanski and I don't recall anyone cheering this guy.



Skip to :34 and watch the next 30 seconds or so.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> Skip to :34 and watch the next 30 seconds or so.



I would say I am amazed, but this is the left... if you are dishonest, lying, child molester/rapist, abuser of power (Clinton/Lewinski) you are a hero; that is, as long as the liar, rapist, abuser is someone on the left.  

If you handle things honestly, do what you believe is best for your own child, raise them in a very loving and moral climate, allow your faith to direct your actions in correcting wrongs, you are evil and should be shunned; you're a criminal.


----------



## Bann

vraiblonde said:


> And my take is that he grew up and stopped being a yutz, as most teenage boys do.
> 
> But I'm glad AD brought up Roman Polanski.  It's absurd to compare an adult man who drugs and rapes a 13 year old girl to a teenage boy who feels up a teenage girl, but the celebrity reaction is interesting.  The "stars" are coming out of the woodwork to condemn Josh Duggar as an evil predator, yet they didn't say a word negative about Roman Polanski - they were too busy applauding when he won his Oscar.
> 
> Anyone remember when R. Kelly was boinking 13 year olds?  Nobody seemed to care a lot about that.
> 
> Steven Tyler actually got his 14 year old girlfriend's parents to sign over custody to him so he could keep her as a sex slave.
> 
> The list of adult celebrities who are sex abusers is quite long, but....nah, to hell with them, let's talk about Josh Duggar when he was a teenager.
> 
> The hypocrisy is breathtaking.



Then there was Elvis and Priscilla.


----------



## vraiblonde

Bann said:


> Then there was Elvis and Priscilla.



Jerry Lee Lewis and his 12 year old cousin.

The list is long.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> Jerry Lee Lewis and his 12 year old cousin.
> 
> The list is long.



And rational people frown on all of this.  I frown on Josh's behavior.  But there are ages that require parental intervention and there are ages that require the law.  We seem to be unable to differentiate this in today's society; and I think this stems from a generation of parents that refuse to take responsibility for their own urchin.


----------



## Amused_despair

I think at some point you have to be as responsible for the daughters' safety as you are the son's.


----------



## vraiblonde

Amused_despair said:


> I think at some point you have to be as responsible for the daughters' safety as you are the son's.



So tell me...are you in favor of schools handing out birth control?  Do you support Planned Parenthood not having to notify parents if a minor comes in for an abortion?


----------



## Amused_despair

In most cases when a child is 16 or older there is a lot the parent can not inquire about without the minor's permission.  Insurance companies won't talk to you about services rendered, doctors won't talk to you about what they did, heck even internet service providers won't tell you their passwords.  So in that circumstance I would say if it is covered under existing laws for privacy then no, they shouldn't be allowed to talk to the parents if a doctor can't talk to me about my child's last doctor appointment without the child present.  As for handing out birth control?  If it keeps some kid from getting some nasty disease or somebody becoming a parent before they finish middle school?  Yes.  A lot cheaper then paying to support the baby the next 18 years or paying for a lifetime of medical care.


----------



## vraiblonde

Amused_despair said:


> As for handing out birth control?  If it keeps some kid from getting some nasty disease or somebody becoming a parent before they finish middle school?  Yes.  A lot cheaper then paying to support the baby the next 18 years or paying for a lifetime of medical care.



So you think the parents should only protect their daughters in *some* cases?  

Anyway, don't answer that.  I don't care.  The Christian-hating hypocrisy has officially become boring.  And that's exactly what it is.  The Left despises this kid and his whole family because they don't march in Gay Pride parades, and that's the only reason this has become major news.


----------



## PsyOps

Amused_despair said:


> In most cases when a child is 16 or older there is a lot the parent can not inquire about without the minor's permission.  Insurance companies won't talk to you about services rendered, doctors won't talk to you about what they did, heck even internet service providers won't tell you their passwords.  So in that circumstance I would say if it is covered under existing laws for privacy then no, they shouldn't be allowed to talk to the parents if a doctor can't talk to me about my child's last doctor appointment without the child present.  As for handing out birth control?  If it keeps some kid from getting some nasty disease or somebody becoming a parent before they finish middle school?  Yes.  A lot cheaper then paying to support the baby the next 18 years or paying for a lifetime of medical care.



And this is just more indication of how things have changed.  Parents have allowed an environment where ‘systems’ (schools, medical, legal, etc…) control the child’s destiny.  They don’t want the responsibility anymore, so they hand it off to someone else and wash their hands of it.

My child at 16, living under my care, everything they have I paid for, I get everything: access, passwords, medical, school records, their sex life, etc… Otherwise they get nothing: no TV, no computer, no cell phone, no Facebook, if they are dishonest about their behavior and activities I’ll keep them in the house until I am convinced they will comply with MY rules.

But parents today allow the kids to rule and control  their environment.  Then we run around asking why our kids have gone bad.  How pathetically ignorant.


----------



## Amused_despair

Not a question of not wanting the responsibility, it is a question of what is legally allowed.  Try and argue with the person on the telephone form the doctor's office that since you pay the bills you should see their record, no matter what the law says.  Let me know how that turns out.  As for schools...when your kid is home-schooled there is no doubt that the school will control the child's destiny.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> No need to go on with this.  You were honest and I appreciate that.  You’d have your own 14 year old child convicted as a child molester and deemed a child predator and pedophile; thus yanked out of school, never able to be around children again (at least until he turns 18, at which time he would likely be reevaluated to determine if he is safe to exist in normal society), and forced out of any normal life; this all from (according to the Duggar charges) ‘forcible fondling’ – aka copping a feel.
> 
> I am old school where parents took care of the problems with their kids.  You're of this new progressive thinking where even your own kid goes astray you'd call the cops on your own child.  This is just a generational thing I suppose.  And it explains why so many of us have this perception that parents just don't want to take responsibility for their own kids; they want to dump their problems on someone else - in this case you'd dump your problem on society.  Then complain about how our kids have gone so wrong today.  I don't personally begrudge this; I only say we get the society of bad kids we deserve when we, as parents, decide our own kids aren't responsibility anymore.



that's so retarded its funny. I am not and would not dump my kid on society. I would do everything in my power to help my kids. I would also make sure that they are held responsible when the commit a serious crime. You would rather cover up your boy's molesting several young girls than to have him own up to it like any adult would have to. If things happen the way duggar says they did then he probably would not have ended up being removed from the family, at least not for long and his juvenile record would be expunged when he turn 18. Its called taking responsibility for your actions. I know, its an old school value you young whippersnappers might not understand



vraiblonde said:


> Dude, you completely made that up.  There has been no allegation that he laid a hand on the 4 year old.  The report said girls, including one of his sisters.  There was no mention of how old any of them were.  So your whole basis for outrage is made up in your mind and not based on any fact.
> 
> So why don't you just admit why you hate this guy so much that you have to make up a bunch of crap about him?



All you have to do is read between the lines (and redactions) of the police report. they interviewed 5 sisters who had all been touched and one girl who was not a family member. The 5 oldest sisters when Josh was 14 ranged from 4 to 12. Nothing made up.



PsyOps said:


> And this is just more indication of how things have changed.  Parents have allowed an environment where ‘systems’ (schools, medical, legal, etc…) control the child’s destiny.  They don’t want the responsibility anymore, so they hand it off to someone else and wash their hands of it.
> 
> My child at 16, living under my care, everything they have I paid for, I get everything: access, passwords, medical, school records, their sex life, etc… Otherwise they get nothing: no TV, no computer, no cell phone, no Facebook, if they are dishonest about their behavior and activities I’ll keep them in the house until I am convinced they will comply with MY rules.
> 
> But parents today allow the kids to rule and control  their environment.  Then we run around asking why our kids have gone bad.  How pathetically ignorant.



See I would do all of those things AND make sure that they made it right with the authorities.

you might give your kid a pass on stealing your car. YOU might even give him 6 passes, I wouldn't. But as soon as you know he has stolen a neighbors car, you need to involve the police. What are you teaching him by not having him face the true punishment for his crime? This is more serious than a stolen car to me....


----------



## GURPS

vraiblonde said:


> And my take is that he grew up and stopped being a yutz, as most teenage boys do.
> 
> But I'm glad AD brought up Roman Polanski.





Ahem .... http://forums.somd.com/threads/300151-Dugger-vs-Dunham?p=5532303&viewfull=1#post5532303


----------



## GURPS

Amused_despair said:


> Not a question of not wanting the responsibility, it is a question of what is legally allowed.






until they are 18 they cannot make decisions for themselves, enter contracts etc .... except well get an abortion in fact the school nurse cannot give them an asprin, buy 16 / 17 they can go to the 'free clinic and make decisions about lethal medical procedures


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> that's so retarded its funny.



Well, I gave it my best shot, and you did about what I predicted you'd do.............. take cheap personal shot.  You go back to the ignore category.  Don't waste your time replying to my 'retarded' comments.


----------



## PsyOps

Amused_despair said:


> Not a question of not wanting the responsibility, it is a question of what is legally allowed.  Try and argue with the person on the telephone form the doctor's office that since you pay the bills you should see their record, no matter what the law says.  Let me know how that turns out.  As for schools...when your kid is home-schooled there is no doubt that the school will control the child's destiny.



These 'laws' only exist because the people allow them to.  And it seems (especially based on the replies in this thread) it's what people want - total unaccountability and responsibility to our children.  It's unimaginable for me to believe I can't see my own child's medical records; who is completely dependent on me for everything, they do not survive without my full monetary support.  We have allowed the government to strip us of every right we should have in regards to our so-called 'dependents'.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> Well, I gave it my best shot, and you did about what I predicted you'd do.............. take cheap personal shot.  You go back to the ignore category.  Don't waste your time replying to my 'retarded' comments.



if this strawman is your best shot you ought to just sign off



> I am old school where parents took care of the problems with their kids. You're of this new progressive thinking where even your own kid goes astray you'd call the cops on your own child. This is just a generational thing I suppose. And it explains why so many of us have this perception that parents just don't want to take responsibility for their own kids; they want to dump their problems on someone else - in this case you'd dump your problem on society. Then complain about how our kids have gone so wrong today. I don't personally begrudge this; I only say we get the society of bad kids we deserve when we, as parents, decide our own kids aren't responsibility anymore.



as you should have predicted, I called you on a bunch of retarded BS


----------



## PsyOps

GURPS said:


> Ahem .... http://forums.somd.com/threads/300151-Dugger-vs-Dunham?p=5532303&viewfull=1#post5532303



Oh, pat yourself on the back.

Wait, let me help  

:imissed:


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> if this strawman is your best shot you ought to just sign off
> 
> 
> 
> as you should have predicted, I called you on a bunch of retarded BS


It's not "retarded BS."  It's a difference of opinion.  Your opinion eventually came around to be "the state has the responsibility to properly discipline and provide help for my child if he feels up another child, so I demonstrate my parental responsibility by turning my child over to the state"; whereas my (and what I perceive Psy's) opinion is "I am responsible for my child so I provide the discipline and counseling for him myself, including making him confess and provide some form of restitution, all while working with the parents of the victims."

I don't understand your incessant need to belittle other people's opinions by calling them retarded and such.  You and a certified licensed psychotherapist should really look into that.


----------



## PsyOps

And here is another example of how parents will choose to go some legal route when two kids get into it, rather than just take care of it as parents.

Two kids get in a fight on a school bus (something that happened all the time when I was a kid).  Rather than the parents just discipline their kids, the parents sue the school system..................... for $10 million.  What a fine lesson to teach our children.............. when a scuffle happens............... sue.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

Back in my day both kids would have gotten a good spanking, forced to apologize to each other, then spend some time in their rooms thinking about it.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> It's not "retarded BS."  It's a difference of opinion.  Your opinion eventually came around to be "the state has the responsibility to properly discipline and provide help for my child if he feels up another child, so I demonstrate my parental responsibility by turning my child over to the state"; whereas my (and what I perceive Psy's) opinion is "I am responsible for my child so I provide the discipline and counseling for him myself, including making him confess and provide some form of restitution, all while working with the parents of the victims."
> 
> I don't understand your incessant need to belittle other people's opinions by calling them retarded and such.  You and a certified licensed psychotherapist should really look into that.



The straw man you guys insist on building is retarded BS. That is not what I have said, I have repeated my position numerous times and you both insist on making up some BS to ascribe to me instead of addressing my actual position.

My position has been from the beginning that I would discipline my kid AND I would make sure they faced the legal 'music' if they committed a (or more than one) serious crime. 

Hiding your kids misdoings from the authorities, particularly when they are serious crimes against other people, is just wrong. You aren't teaching any great values that way....



PsyOps said:


> And here is another example of how parents will choose to go some legal route when two kids get into it, rather than just take care of it as parents.
> 
> Two kids get in a fight on a school bus (something that happened all the time when I was a kid).  Rather than the parents just discipline their kids, the parents sue the school system..................... for $10 million.  What a fine lesson to teach our children.............. when a scuffle happens............... sue.
> 
> Never let a crisis go to waste.
> 
> Back in my day both kids would have gotten a good spanking, forced to apologize to each other, then spend some time in their rooms thinking about it.



Seems like this is a little more then a simple fight on the school bus. I don't know hat it deserves a suing, but there is more to it...



> The bus driver continued to drive,” McDaniel said. “He did not stop. He did not make sure that Saraia was OK. In essence, he just allowed the attack to take place.”
> 
> Tierra Holland, Saraia’s mother, said the bullying was an ongoing issue previously reported to school administrators.
> 
> “It’s not about the money for us,” Holland said. “We are not suing for money. We’re worried about Prince George’s County Public Schools acknowledging bullying going on in her school.”


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> The straw man you guys insist on building is retarded BS. That is not what I have said, I have repeated my position numerous times and you both insist on making up some BS to ascribe to me instead of addressing my actual position.
> 
> My position has been from the beginning that I would discipline my kid AND *I would make sure they faced the legal 'music' if they committed a (or more than one) serious crime.*


What "strawman" am I ascribing to you?  I said you believe your child is better served by the government, then YOU said you believe your child is best served by the government and not you alone.

I, and I believe Psy, disagree that the child is better served by including the government and all of the tentacles which go with that.  You disagree.  That is not a strawman, you just said it.

That means we have a different opinion than yours.  That is not retarded BS, that's a difference of opinion.

You really should seek professional counsel to determine why you can't face that without hateful malice.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> What "strawman" am I ascribing to you?  *I said you believe your child is better served by the government, then YOU said you believe your child is best served by the government and not you alone*.
> 
> I, and I believe Psy, disagree that the child is better served by including the government and all of the tentacles which go with that.  You disagree.  That is not a strawman, you just said it.
> 
> That means we have a different opinion than yours.  That is not retarded BS, that's a difference of opinion.
> 
> You really should seek professional counsel to determine why you can't face that without hateful malice.



There is your straw man right there


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> There is your straw man right there


If you do not believe your child would be better served by the government and not you alone, then please explain what this means:

Midnightrider said:


> My position has been from the beginning that I would discipline my kid AND I would make sure they faced the legal 'music' if they committed a (or more than one) serious crime.
> 
> Hiding your kids misdoings from the authorities, particularly when they are serious crimes against other people, is just wrong. You aren't teaching any great values that way....


What great values are you teaching by turning him over to the government that you can't do alone?  If it is not better for your child to turn him over to the government than to handle it yourself, then why would you do that?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> If you do not believe your child would be better served by the government and not you alone, then please explain what this means:​What great values are you teaching by turning him over to the government that you can't do alone?  If it is not better for your child to turn him over to the government than to handle it yourself, then why would you do that?


Its called being responsible for your actions. My statement explains itself. 

You just keep building your strawman


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Its called being responsible for your actions. My statement explains itself.
> 
> You just keep building your strawman



You either believe your child is better off in the hands of the state for being a kid feeling up another kid, or you don't.  Which one is it?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> You either believe your child is better off in the hands of the state for being a kid feeling up another kid, or you don't.  Which one is it?



Like I said, keep building your strawman


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Like I said, keep building your strawman



Well, you clearly said that you would turn your child over to the police.  That says you either believe your child is best served by the governmental system that would come from that turnover, or you believe it is more important to serve the government that way than to serve your child.

You can't answer this basic question.  If there is a third option - if my logic is somehow  faulty - provide your reasoning that would show your belief in how your child is best served by turning them over to the government.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Well, you clearly said that you would turn your child over to the police.  That says you either believe your child is best served by the governmental system that would come from that turnover, or you believe it is more important to serve the government that way than to serve your child.
> 
> You can't answer this basic question.  If there is a third option - if my logic is somehow  faulty - provide your reasoning that would show your belief in how your child is best served by turning them over to the government.



Its called taking responsibility for your actions. You either believe in it or you dont.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Its called taking responsibility for your actions. You either believe in it or you dont.


I believe in it.  That's why I would handle my child myself.  I would teach him to take responsibility for his actions as well.

You clearly and unambiguously said you would turn your child over to the government.  That implies that you believe the government is there to teach you (or your child) responsibility.  

Or, do you believe that it is possible to take responsibility for your child, and have your child take responsibility for his actions, without involving the government?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I believe in it.  That's why I would handle my child myself.  I would teach him to take responsibility for his actions as well.
> 
> You clearly and unambiguously said you would turn your child over to the government.  That implies that you believe the government is there to teach you (or your child) responsibility.
> 
> Or, do you believe that it is possible to take responsibility for your child, and have your child take responsibility for his actions, without involving the government?


What you infer is on you. That is not what I implied. Try reading in context.

Funny that you think taking responsibility means hiding a serious crime. That's pretty much the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> What you infer is on you. That is not what I implied. Try reading in context.


I read in context.  In context, you said you would turn your child over to the government if he did something wrong, like feel up another kid.  Is that or is that not your stance?





> Funny that you think taking responsibility means hiding a serious crime. That's pretty much the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions.


I never said I'd hide it.  I said I would take responsibility for it, discipline and provide psychological help for my child.  I said I would deal with the victim and the parents of the victim.

What I said I would not do is involve the government.

You said the you would provide some form of discipline to your child AND involve the government.  

The only difference between our positions is involvement of the government.  Then, you state that not involving the government is "pretty much the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions."

I do not believe the government is the arbiter of taking responsibility for actions.  I believe a person does or does not take responsibility for their actions, whether the government is involved or not.  I further believe that one of my responsibilities is to teach my child, and look out for my children's well-being.  I believe that involving the government in a child's act of feeling up another child is likely to be more harmful than helpful to both my child and the victim, so I would choose to not involve the government in that action.  Now, if my child raped another child, or killed another child, or something similar beyond the ability for me to help him or get him help, I would probably involve the government at that time.  Feeling up another child (to the point that the other child didn't even wake up) doesn't rise to that level.

You have stated unambiguously that in this case you would turn your child over to the government.  You further stated that not doing so is "pretty much the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions".  There are only two things that means: (1) you believe turning the child over to the government for this case is better for the child, or, (2) you accept that turning your child over to the government is not better for your child, but you don't care what's better, you simply believe the government needs to  be involved for some reason.  Either way, I disagree.  If there is a third option, please provide it.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I read in context.  In context, you said you would turn your child over to the government if he did something wrong, like feel up another kid.  Is that or is that not your stance?I never said I'd hide it.  I said I would take responsibility for it, discipline and provide psychological help for my child.  I said I would deal with the victim and the parents of the victim.
> 
> What I said I would not do is involve the government.
> 
> You said the you would provide some form of discipline to your child AND involve the government.
> 
> The only difference between our positions is involvement of the government.  Then, you state that not involving the government is "pretty much the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions."
> 
> I do not believe the government is the arbiter of taking responsibility for actions.  I believe a person does or does not take responsibility for their actions, whether the government is involved or not.  I further believe that one of my responsibilities is to teach my child, and look out for my children's well-being.  I believe that involving the government in a child's act of feeling up another child is likely to be more harmful than helpful to both my child and the victim, so I would choose to not involve the government in that action.  Now, if my child raped another child, or killed another child, or something similar beyond the ability for me to help him or get him help, I would probably involve the government at that time.  Feeling up another child (to the point that the other child didn't even wake up) doesn't rise to that level.
> 
> You have stated unambiguously that in this case you would turn your child over to the government.  You further stated that not doing so is "pretty much the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions".  There are only two things that means: (1) you believe turning the child over to the government for this case is better for the child, or, (2) you accept that turning your child over to the government is not better for your child, but you don't care what's better, you simply believe the government needs to  be involved for some reason.  Either way, I disagree.  If there is a third option, please provide it.



It is a serious crime. What part of that do you not understand? If you do not turn yourself in when you commit a serious crime you are hiding it and avoiding taking responsibility for it. 


I can tell you this much, the one time one of my kids got into any trouble he stood up and answered for it to the proper authority, but the punishment he got at home was much more severe. 

You keep on building strawmen and hiding from taking responsibility.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> It is a serious crime. What part of that do you not understand? If you do not turn yourself in when you commit a serious crime you are hiding it and avoiding taking responsibility for it.
> 
> 
> I can tell you this much, the one time one of my kids got into any trouble he stood up and answered for it to the proper authority, but the punishment he got at home was much more severe.
> 
> You keep on building strawmen and hiding from taking responsibility.


So you believe that (1) or (2) was more accurate?

I do not find the government "proper authority" for a kid feeling up another kid.  You do.  That's a difference of opinion.  I fully and firmly believe that people can take responsibility for their children and their actions without involving the government.  You are stating, again here, that you do not believe that.  These are simply differences of opinion. :shrug:


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> So you believe that (1) or (2) was more accurate?
> 
> I do not find the government "proper authority" for a kid feeling up another kid.  You do.  That's a difference of opinion.  I fully and firmly believe that people can take responsibility for their children and their actions without involving the government.  You are stating, again here, that you do not believe that.  These are simply differences of opinion. :shrug:



This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.



So, was (1) or (2) more accurate?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> So, was (1) or (2) more accurate?



This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.



I got your opinion on that previously.  It doesn't answer the question.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.



Does that mean you think there is a third option, or that your answer is option (2)?  Or option (1)?  You seem incapable of answering a really direct question.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Does that mean you think there is a third option, or that your answer is option (2)?  Or option (1)?  You seem incapable of answering a really direct question.



I've answered your question numerous times. Now I am bored with you again :shrug:

This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> I've answered your question numerous times. Now I am bored with you again :shrug:
> 
> This was molestation of 5 of his sisters and one person not related to him. You can try to minimize that by calling it 'feeling up another kid', but violating a young girl is a serious crime to me and to the proper authorities.


You've never once answered the question.

I get you'd turn your kid in, but I didn't ask that.  I get that you believe it to be a serious crime, but I didn't ask that.  I get that you believe the proper authority over your own child is the government, but I didn't ask that.  You're great at answering questions I did NOT ask, now try answering one that I did ask.

I asked:  Do you believe:  (1) turning the child over to the government for this case is better for the child, or, (2) you accept that turning your child over to the government is not better for your child, but you don't care what's better, you simply believe the government needs to be involved for some reason. If there is a third option, please provide it.

TRY and answer the question asked, not stuff I didn't ask.


----------



## Amused_despair

This_person said:


> You've never once answered the question.
> 
> I get you'd turn your kid in, but I didn't ask that.  I get that you believe it to be a serious crime, but I didn't ask that.  I get that you believe the proper authority over your own child is the government, but I didn't ask that.  You're great at answering questions I did NOT ask, now try answering one that I did ask.
> 
> I asked:  Do you believe:  (1) turning the child over to the government for this case is better for the child, or, (2) you accept that turning your child over to the government is not better for your child, but you don't care what's better, you simply believe the government needs to be involved for some reason. If there is a third option, please provide it.
> 
> TRY and answer the question asked, not stuff I didn't ask.



So what YOU are saying is that you would sacrifice the safety of your daughters to keep your son from facing the consequences of his actions and just maybe getting some help?  Nice to know your son means more to you then your daughters.  In a nutshell he sexually assaulted someone.  He should have been reported to the authorities.  it is a little thing we have here called the LAW.  If you want to go by biblical law then little Joshua should have been taken out back and stoned.  I understand you feel that you are above the law, sounds like a great plan for you, hope it works out for you and yours.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> You've never once answered the question.
> 
> I get you'd turn your kid in, but I didn't ask that.  I get that you believe it to be a serious crime, but I didn't ask that.  I get that you believe the proper authority over your own child is the government, but I didn't ask that.  You're great at answering questions I did NOT ask, now try answering one that I did ask.
> 
> I asked:  Do you believe:  (1) turning the child over to the government for this case is better for the child, or, (2) you accept that turning your child over to the government is not better for your child, but you don't care what's better, you simply believe the government needs to be involved for some reason. If there is a third option, please provide it.
> 
> TRY and answer the question asked, not stuff I didn't ask.



Go back and read, I've answered numerous times 
I get that you think you, and your imaginary kids, are above the law and that you don't have to answer for your crimes. I get that you think this is a great value to teach your imaginary children, I disagree with that opinion.I get that you think hiding child molestation is actually taking responsibility for said crime. I aging disagree with your opinion. Since you are teaching your imaginary kids that they are above the law you must be trying to raise either 1) a young Clinton, or )2 a young Kennedy. Since those are the only two options, which is it?
Meh


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Go back and read, I've answered numerous times
> I get that you think you, and your imaginary kids, are above the law and that you don't have to answer for your crimes. I get that you think this is a great value to teach your imaginary children, I disagree with that opinion.I get that you think hiding child molestation is actually taking responsibility for said crime. I aging disagree with your opinion. Since you are teaching your imaginary kids that they are above the law you must be trying to raise either 1) a young Clinton, or )2 a young Kennedy. Since those are the only two options, which is it?
> Meh


Now, pay close attention, because this is what answering the question looks like.

I don't believe it is either 1 or 2 of your options. [edit: Note: I gave you an option of "or provide option 3 if 1 and 2 are not accurate".] I do not have imaginary kids, I have real kids.  While none of my real kids were ever accused of this particular type of crime, there are other things that happened when raising kids, like playground scuffles.  By your discussion, those playground scuffles would have been taken to the police, or I would be "hiding" the crime.  There was no "hiding" the crime.  I simply chose to not involve the government into my parenting.

I'm guessing by the way you are answering that you do not have children.  The questions I've asked you repeatedly and you've never answered is if you think involving the government into your parenting is better for your child or not, or, if you even care if it is better for the child or not.  Since you can't answer that, the only possible assumption - based on your repeatedly calling the crime serious - is that you do not care what would be best for your child but rather some implied social contract wherein the government is the "proper authority" over your child.  I know you'll say that's not what you're saying, but you won't answer that basic, simply question - which is better for your child, involving the government or not.

What you really don't like is being put in the position of acknowledging the consequences of your opinions.


----------



## PsyOps

This_person said:


> I do not have imaginary kids, I have real kids.  While none of my real kids were ever accused of this particular type of crime, there are other things that happened when raising kids, like playground scuffles.  By your discussion, those playground scuffles would have been taken to the police, or I would be "hiding" the crime.  There was no "hiding" the crime.  I simply chose to not involve the government into my parenting.



I suppose it’s pointless to have this discussion with people that don’t have kids and have never been confronted with a REAL situation.  They can throw all sorts of hypotheticals and theories out there about what they THINK they would do; but have no experience in a real situation.  I’m inclined not to entertain their advice or opinion.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> and to the proper authorities.



Apparently not because they declined to charge him.

So far all you've brought to support your argument is fictional what-if scenarios.  The real truth is that you don't know any more than anyone else except for the parties directly involved.  You've opined as to who the victims were; you've made up additional victims; you've come up with all sorts of things that you do not know to be true, and have never been alleged by the authorities or the Duggars themselves.

Why the witch hunt?


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> Apparently not because they declined to charge him.
> 
> So far all you've brought to support your argument is fictional what-if scenarios.  The real truth is that you don't know any more than anyone else except for the parties directly involved.  You've opined as to who the victims were; you've made up additional victims; you've come up with all sorts of things that you do not know to be true, and have never been alleged by the authorities or the Duggars themselves.
> 
> Why the witch hunt?



He has to win.  He has to prove how right he is and how wrong everyone else is.  Always the last word.


----------



## This_person

PsyOps said:


> He has to win.  He has to prove how right he is and how wrong everyone else is.  Always the last word.



Which is why he seems to balk at questions that point out the problems with his argument.  He says "that's not what I said", but can't find a way to show how what he said is different from what everyone read he said.  Then, suddenly, he's  bored with the person.    He apparently can't figure out the difference between boredom and realizing the faults with his own argument.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Now, pay close attention, because this is what answering the question looks like.
> 
> I don't believe it is either 1 or 2 of your options. [edit: Note: I gave you an option of "or provide option 3 if 1 and 2 are not accurate".] I do not have imaginary kids, I have real kids.  While none of my real kids were ever accused of this particular type of crime, there are other things that happened when raising kids, like playground scuffles.  By your discussion, those playground scuffles would have been taken to the police, or I would be "hiding" the crime.  There was no "hiding" the crime.  I simply chose to not involve the government into my parenting.
> 
> I'm guessing by the way you are answering that you do not have children.  The questions I've asked you repeatedly and you've never answered is if you think involving the government into your parenting is better for your child or not, or, if you even care if it is better for the child or not.  Since you can't answer that, the only possible assumption - based on your repeatedly calling the crime serious - is that you do not care what would be best for your child but rather some implied social contract wherein the government is the "proper authority" over your child.  I know you'll say that's not what you're saying, but you won't answer that basic, simply question - which is better for your child, involving the government or not.
> 
> What you really don't like is being put in the position of acknowledging the consequences of your opinions.


I did answer your question. go back and try reading for a change. If you had you wouldn't be 'guessing about me having kids, and being wrong while doing so.



vraiblonde said:


> Apparently not because they declined to charge him.
> 
> So far all you've brought to support your argument is fictional what-if scenarios.  The real truth is that you don't know any more than anyone else except for the parties directly involved.  You've opined as to who the victims were; you've made up additional victims; you've come up with all sorts of things that you do not know to be true, and have never been alleged by the authorities or the Duggars themselves.
> 
> Why the witch hunt?



The police report is pretty straight forward. They interviewed 6 people, 5 of whom lived in the home and were related. The only assumption i made was that the victims were all girls, which is what the Duggars have said.

As for why the police didn't press charges when this report was filed, it apprently has to do with statute of limitations. From what i have read the police contact with Hutchins started the clock and it had expired by the 2006 report.



			
				http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2015/may/23/duggar-s-state-police-notice-went-nowhe/ said:
			
		

> An Arkansas State Police corporal who gave Josh Duggar "a very stern talk" in 2003 about the teen's improper sexual conduct started the clock on the time limit for filing any charges, according to police records and Arkansas law.
> 
> The time in which charges could be filed expired before police received an anonymous tip Dec. 7, 2006, about the same conduct by Duggar, records show.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/josh-duggar-joseph-hutchens-state-trooper
oh, and that trooper was convicted of child porn....


PsyOps said:


> He has to win.  He has to prove how right he is and how wrong everyone else is.  Always the last word.



I dont have to win, and getting the last word would be tough with this group, but being right, thats easy.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> I did answer your question. go back and try reading for a change. If you had you wouldn't be 'guessing about me having kids, and being wrong while doing so.


Not once did you say, "I think option 1 (or 2) is what I think," nor did you say,"what I think would be best for my child is..."

You've discussed what you think "taking responsibility" means  (abdication of your parental authority to the state), and what you think the severity of the crime is, and you've said any other opinion than yours is retarded, but you've never said, "the best interest of my child is served by..."

You consider that you have, but reality and what you consider to be reality are often at odds, including this belief of yours.


----------



## Amused_despair

This_person said:


> Not once did you say, "I think option 1 (or 2) is what I think," nor did you say,"what I think would be best for my child is..."
> 
> You've discussed what you think "taking responsibility" means  (abdication of your parental authority to the state), and what you think the severity of the crime is, and you've said any other opinion than yours is retarded, but you've never said, "the best interest of my child is served by..."
> 
> You consider that you have, but reality and what you consider to be reality are often at odds, including this belief of yours.



"And what is truth?  Is truth some unchanging law?  We both have truths.  Are mine the same as yours?"


----------



## This_person

Amused_despair said:


> "And what is truth?  Is truth some unchanging law?  We both have truths.  Are mine the same as yours?"



I am not speaking of the existential.  I am speaking of the solid and verifiable.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Not once did you say, "I think option 1 (or 2) is what I think," nor did you say,"what I think would be best for my child is..."
> 
> You've discussed what you think "taking responsibility" means  (abdication of your parental authority to the state), and what you think the severity of the crime is, and you've said any other opinion than yours is retarded, but you've never said, "the best interest of my child is served by..."
> 
> You consider that you have, but reality and what you consider to be reality are often at odds, including this belief of yours.





yeah, i answered your question. your reality may differ, but that is what happened. I dont care that it isn't satisfying to you

did you go back and figure out that your guess is wrong too?


----------



## Roman

If my daughter was the one that wasn't related to the Duggars, and Josh fondled her, I would have reported it to the authorities, no question. Now if Josh did this to his own sisters, I could understand them not going to LEO, and trying to handle it themselves, but with the help of a Psychologist, and/or the Church if that's what makes them happy. I just wonder why the family of the unrelated girl didn't press charges? I know that Josh was only 14 when this happened, but by the age of 14, he knew right from wrong, otherwise he would have gotten his jollies during the day, in front of whomever, but he chose to sneak in the middle of the night, when everyone was in bed. Chances are that by the time Josh turned 18, those records would be expunged.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> yeah, i answered your question. your reality may differ, but that is what happened. I dont care that it isn't satisfying to you
> 
> did you go back and figure out that your guess is wrong too?


It  was just a guess :shrug:  Please link me to the answer that shows what you think is the thing that is in the best interest of your child.

TYIA


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> It  was just a guess :shrug:  Please link me to the answer that shows what you think is the thing that is in the best interest of your child.
> 
> TYIA


Just like the answer to your question, the correct answer to that 'guess' was spelled out, you just ignored it.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Just like the answer to your question, the correct answer to that 'guess' was spelled out, you just ignored it.


Please link me to the answer that shows what you think is the thing that is in the best interest of your child.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Please link me to the answer that shows what you think is the thing that is in the best interest of your child.




I already answered your question. Go back and read for yourself.


----------



## digitallest

Hey, please do me a favor, and stop trivializing the sexual assault of children by other children? Stop calling it "fondling" and "copping a feel" and "playing doctor" and all the other cutesy names, as if to diminish what it is, and how it truly feels to be experimented on in ones sleep. It is a real crime, and both the victim and perpetrator need to know it is a big deal. The victim, so they feel like it is ok to seek help and "make a big deal" of the emotions, and the perp so they do not become a serisl rapist.  It is not normal, not harmless, and everyone does not do it. Boys will be boys should not mean boys will be sexual predators. Come up, society, please.

If you woke up to a 14 year old fondling your privates, when you were a kid, it would be no big deal? How about at your current age?


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> I already answered your question. Go back and read for yourself.



Re-read the thread.  You never did.  That's why you can't show me differently.


----------



## This_person

digitallest said:


> Hey, please do me a favor, and stop trivializing the sexual assault of children by other children? Stop calling it "fondling" and "copping a feel" and "playing doctor" and all the other cutesy names, as if to diminish what it is, and how it truly feels to be experimented on in ones sleep. It is a real crime, and both the victim and perpetrator need to know it is a big deal. The victim, so they feel like it is ok to seek help and "make a big deal" of the emotions, and the perp so they do not become a serisl rapist.  It is not normal, not harmless, and everyone does not do it. Boys will be boys should not mean boys will be sexual predators. Come up, society, please.
> 
> If you woke up to a 14 year old fondling your privates, when you were a kid, it would be no big deal? How about at your current age?


You're makingthe same mistake MR made.  No one is suggesting it is not a serious crime.  Everyone is suggesting that the perpetrator should be both properly disciplined and given psychological help, as should the victims as needed.   But let's be realistic,  it is not rape. The charge of fondling is the word on the report, not someone here.


----------



## digitallest

It is   not specifically the people here, it is everywhere.  Just two years ago, a young, innocent family member woke to find an overnight guest, a friend of her cousins, only a year older than her, working at getting her pjs off, he was touching her. She really suffered emotionally. Her parents got her help, and left it up to her if she wanted to press charges (she did not)  she struggles with it still, but is a lot better off than she was. I saw this happy, bubbly girl become so sad, and isolated in her darkest days. Even reaching out for help was hard for her, and the whole family. She felt defined by it, and we came very close to losing her to suicide. 

So, when people use terms that mischaracterize what happened to her, it strikes a nerve. To me, fondling is a gentle touch, not a searing memory that makes a person want to give up on life. I wish all of society were more clear with kids. Fwiw, I am glad not to be related to either Dunham or Duggar, and wanted to neuter the kid who touched my family member with a blunt, rusty object. I am grateful not to have been put in the position of having to protect my daughter from my son. I can not imagine the heartache. The legal description of "fondling" grosses me out, too, I would like to see it changed to something more fitting.

 It is a subject I will always personalize, since that happened, it left a deep scar in the family. It is an event that left a mark on ME, it broke my heart to see how one horny little jackass with boundary issues could hurt a vulnerable girl so much. She was afraid to sleep, stopped wanting to socialize, the world became a more malevolent place, overnight.


----------



## Tito

4 out of 5 were his sisters and as young as 5 years old. What a sick ####!


----------



## littlelady

Tito said:


> 4 out of 5 were his sisters and as young as 5 years old. What a sick ####!



You may have been listening to Megyn Kelly's interview tonight, as was I.  What I got out of it is if you put yourself out there on a reality show and some scoop gets wind of juvenile records, you get what you get.  The family made themselves public figures and celebrities.  They seemed surprised that the tabloids and news would go after them.  The mom has a really whiny crying voice.  I made the  mistake here on the forum of putting out too much info about my wayward son, and paid the price, but, seriously, she was grating on my last nerve.  I was thinking I would feel sorry for them, but I don't.  When they said the system failed them, that was all I had to hear.  All families have skeletons in the closet.  Why would they think they are immune?  Because they are so religious?  Maybe 19+ children was too many to parent in the first place.  As always, jmo.


----------



## Bann

littlelady said:


> You may have been listening to Megyn Kelly's interview tonight, as was I.  What I got out of it is if you put yourself out there on a reality show and some scoop gets wind of juvenile records, you get what you get.  The family made themselves public figures and celebrities.  They seemed surprised that the tabloids and news would go after them.  The mom has a really whiny crying voice.  I made the  mistake here on the forum of putting out too much info about my wayward son, and paid the price, but, seriously, she was grating on my last nerve.  I was thinking I would feel sorry for them, but I don't.  *When they said the system failed them, that was all I had to hear.  All families have skeletons in the closet.  Why would they think they are immune?*  Because they are so religious?  Maybe 19+ children was too many to parent in the first place.  As always, jmo.



Immune from skeletons - no.  As a family they dealt with the skeletons.   How they dealt with those skeltons was a matter that was apparently/eventually addressed/handled in court and apparently was warranted and deemed appropriate, otherwise, the case wouldn't have been closed.    (and SEALED because their son was a MINOR at the time)

The Duggars are absolutely correct that the (court) system failed them, as there is a system in place for dealing with minors/juveniles.  They had a right to expect, as does every other family of a juvenile with a sealed record, to that privacy because it is the court (a Judge) that orders those records sealed.  The Duggars didn't order it. Their lawyer did not order that.  The court did.  

Someone, (one little cog in that wheel of "the system")  violated that court order, and they therefore, *broke the law in order to further their agenda* (which if I recall correctly, Mrs. Duggar stated)

OTOH, YOUR family skeletons, concerned your adult child, who's transgressions are a matter of public record, and which you exposed to the forums.  The court did not, and your adult son did not. You did -  and I suspect from your posting about it here that you are the one who is bitter and nasty because you didn't receive the reception you were hoping for (whatever that was)  after venting your spleen about it post after post, night after night, way back when.


----------



## PsyOps

digitallest said:


> Hey, please do me a favor, and stop trivializing the sexual assault of children by other children? Stop calling it "fondling" and "copping a feel" and "playing doctor" and all the other cutesy names, as if to diminish what it is, and how it truly feels to be experimented on in ones sleep. It is a real crime, and both the victim and perpetrator need to know it is a big deal. The victim, so they feel like it is ok to seek help and "make a big deal" of the emotions, and the perp so they do not become a serisl rapist.  It is not normal, not harmless, and everyone does not do it. Boys will be boys should not mean boys will be sexual predators. Come up, society, please.
> 
> If you woke up to a 14 year old fondling your privates, when you were a kid, it would be no big deal? How about at your current age?



Then change the police report that stated it was ‘forcible fondling’.  I think it’s been stated enough that no one approves of what Josh did.  The problem I have is dredging this up 10+ years later, and that there is no evidence that Josh committing any other sexual acts against any child since he was ‘corrected’.  He is now married with children.  The girls do not appear to be suffering any long-term mental/sexual problems from all of this – the two interviewed on Fox don’t even seem to remember what happened.  They said they’re more distraught over the media attention of this than the actual sexual acts Josh committed against them.  So, who’s actually committed the assault now?

The family dealt with this.  The law decided not to press charges.  The kids are older now and appear to be well adjusted  and balanced kids.  It serves no purpose to dredge something up 10 years after the fact, all in a cause to ruin a family.  You can talk all you want about the abuse Josh inflicted on these girls, but you folks don’t seem to realize this sort of incessant attention on a matter that happened 10 years and was dealt with can also be a form of abuse.


----------



## Hijinx

> It serves no purpose to dredge something up 10 years after the fact, all in a cause to ruin a family.



Sure it serves a purpose.

Some a-hole got off on destroying another person.


----------



## PsyOps

Hijinx said:


> Sure it serves a purpose.
> 
> Some a-hole got off on destroying another person.



I totally get that there are people our there that their only purpose in life is to find ways to destroy lives because they philosophically disagree with them.


----------



## littlelady

Bann said:


> Immune from skeletons - no.  As a family they dealt with the skeletons.   How they dealt with those skeltons was a matter that was apparently/eventually addressed/handled in court and apparently was warranted and deemed appropriate, otherwise, the case wouldn't have been closed.    (and SEALED because their son was a MINOR at the time)
> 
> The Duggars are absolutely correct that the (court) system failed them, as there is a system in place for dealing with minors/juveniles.  They had a right to expect, as does every other family of a juvenile with a sealed record, to that privacy because it is the court (a Judge) that orders those records sealed.  The Duggars didn't order it. Their lawyer did not order that.  The court did.
> 
> Someone, (one little cog in that wheel of "the system")  violated that court order, and they therefore, *broke the law in order to further their agenda* (which if I recall correctly, Mrs. Duggar stated)
> 
> OTOH, YOUR family skeletons, concerned your adult child, who's transgressions are a matter of public record, and which you exposed to the forums.  The court did not, and your adult son did not. You did -  and I suspect from your posting about it here that you are the one who is bitter and nasty because you didn't receive the reception you were hoping for (whatever that was)  after venting your spleen about it post after post, night after night, way back when.



You do have some valid comments...but I have 2 questions.  How long does it take you to get over a grudge, and do you have a backup supply of soapboxes?


----------



## Bann

littlelady said:


> You do have some valid comments...but I have 2 questions.  How long does it take you to get over a grudge, and do you have a backup supply of soapboxes?



What grudge?  You brought up the fact that the Duggars have no right to immunity to past skeletons.  :shrug:


----------



## PsyOps

littlelady said:


> You do have some valid comments...but I have 2 questions.  How long does it take you to get over a grudge, and do you have a backup supply of soapboxes?



What the heck are you talking about 'grudge'?  The grudge is in the people (activists and the media) for dredging up a story that is 14 years old and long-since resolved.  The Duggars moved way beyond this and on with their lives.  The two daughters interviewed said that having this dredged up again is far more painful than what Josh did.

I know this is a hard concept for a lot of you folks to understand Christian forgiveness.  The girls allegedly forgave Josh.  Josh received help.  Josh is now married with kids.  No evidence of subsequent incidents since Josh received help.  This is no one's business.


----------



## Bann

RareBreed said:


> *It was not sealed because when the report was filed, Josh was 18.* I think the problem lies in the fact that the Duggars have been very vocal about how this group or that group are damned to Hell because of how they live or what they think, yet they have something like this happen in their family and yet they put themselves on a pedestal to judge others. I'm also wondering if the other victim was one of the Bates girls (just said family friend which the Bates are). The Bates also have 19 kids and also have a reality show and I will *assume* never went to the authorities when this first happened.




That is incorrect.  The FOIA does not include juvenile records, Arkansas law also addresses that issue.  I had to post the link to this video clip.  Transcripts are not available from Megyn Kelly's show, or else I would include the transcript. 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/42720204...g-duggar-record/?intcmp=related#sp=show-clips


Also - I'm understanding that the police report was apparently *not sealed*, according to the City Attorney, which is why they released it.  (supposedly reluctantly, but that's another story)  Names are redacted, due to the ages of the juveniles.  I think the City Attorney and the Sheriff are skating on very thin ice stating that the record should not have been sealed because Josh was 18 when this was all reported.   Maybe later when I can find it, I will be able to post the transcript,  but last night on Kelly's show she said that a judge declared those records SHOULD HAVE BEEN sealed. 

However - back to the huge public outcry that Christians are somehow above making mistakes and should not, therefore, judge others - what a load of hooey.  

From the interviews I watched (both nights) at NO TIME did either of the parents claim that somehow their son was not wrong. They completely think now and then that he WAS wrong. They did all the right things that they thought they should do, both to get their son help and to help the other children, and their family.  

Good freaking grief.  Just because someone is very opinionated about moral issues and such, doesn't mean they don't make mistakes, fall from grace or any other thing of that sort.  This family obviously suffered - but they WORKED to get things right again.  They made decisions to HELP affect positive change in their own family.  How is that wrong?  They know right from wrong - they aren't "immune" from doing wrong and never do they claim to be immune from doing wrong.  It's what you do to correct that wrong, that counts.  It seems to me, from what I have seen in the interviews and such that they have done all they could in order to correct those wrongs. 

I find it astounding that at the same time, a lot of these critics of the Duggars believe Bruce Jenner taking female hormones, growing tits, long hair, and fingernails and dressing up like Jayne Mansfield and posing on the cover of Vanity Fair is considered totally okay and perfectly fine because "that's who s/he feels like s/he is" and is not considered a mental illness.


----------



## vraiblonde

I don't really understand what the haters hope to accomplish with all this vitriol toward Josh Duggar.  Just to trash him because you all have nothing better to think about?  This situation has been resolved for years.  Years!  So why is it still a thing?


----------



## GURPS

vraiblonde said:


> I don't really understand what the haters hope to accomplish with all this vitriol toward Josh Duggar.  Just to trash him because you all have nothing better to think about?  This situation has been resolved for years.  Years!  So why is it still a thing?





you said it earlier ..... because he is a Christian


----------



## This_person

vraiblonde said:


> I don't really understand what the haters hope to accomplish with all this vitriol toward Josh Duggar.  Just to trash him because you all have nothing better to think about?  This situation has been resolved for years.  Years!  So why is it still a thing?



See, the Duggar family is a happy, successful, and Christian family.  People who subconsciously know that their own lives are not really what they want it to be would rather find a reason to believe that the happy and successful people aren't really happy or successful.  If this family is both happy and Christian, then they MUST be lying somewhere.

If we use the pretzel logic that Christians may never voice their opinions on morality if they have EVER made a moral mistake themselves, then we can be all superior to the Duggars because they have had moral mistakes in their lives and still try to spread their truth about morality.  So, the Duggar-haters can now feel all superior about themselves and therefore their own ####ed-up lives, and they no longer have to worry about improving their lives because, by comparison to the inferior Duggars, they are doing just fine.


----------



## PJay

GURPS said:


> because he is a Christian



^^^


----------



## GURPS

This_person said:


> If we use the pretzel logic that Christians may never voice their opinions on morality if they have EVER made a moral mistake themselves, then we can be all superior to the Duggars because they have had moral mistakes in their lives and still try to spread their truth about morality.  So, the Duggar-haters can now feel all superior about themselves and therefore their own ####ed-up lives, and they no longer have to worry about improving their lives because, by comparison to the inferior Duggars, they are doing just fine.


----------



## Hijinx

I repeat my post number 91

I don't have to wonder at all. It's the old jealous Bs about bringing someone down.
The guy is doing well now and the a-holes cannot stand that, they have to bring him down.
Didn't we see it with Romney
Didn't we see it with something as stupid as spelling potato wrong with a Vice president?
We see the idiot Joe Biden daily making stupid remarks, but a republican spells potato wrong and the a-holes jump all over him.

It's just the small people who do not want to see anyone get ahead unless that person is a liberal.
We saw this when Fritz ran for States Attorney. A few enemies bringing up BS to make their miserable lives feel better by bringing down someone else.

These same people want criminals to be allowed to vote because they have changed their lives in prison, but a person who has not been to prison cannot change, they want to see the crucifixion. It isn't hard to understand them. They are pathetic a-holes.


----------



## Salvador

Hijinx said:


> We saw this when Fritz ran for States Attorney. A few enemies bringing up BS to make their miserable lives feel better by bringing down someone else.
> .



Yeah. How dare them bring up the rape to try and bring him down. That was years ago. There is a time clause for rape right? I mean women get raped every day. No big deal right. You ignorant piece of trash.


----------



## PeoplesElbow

I don't know anything about these people,  don't really care.  I do know that this is how a whole lot of people see them.  

http://deadstate.org/funny-or-dies-new-video-mocking-the-duggar-family-is-perfect/

Got to admit "machine gun of christianity" is pretty funny.


----------



## Midnightrider

Bann said:


> That is incorrect.  The FOIA does not include juvenile records, Arkansas law also addresses that issue.  I had to post the link to this video clip.  Transcripts are not available from Megyn Kelly's show, or else I would include the transcript.
> 
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/42720204...g-duggar-record/?intcmp=related#sp=show-clips
> 
> 
> Also - I'm understanding that the police report was apparently *not sealed*, according to the City Attorney, which is why they released it.  (supposedly reluctantly, but that's another story)  Names are redacted, due to the ages of the juveniles.  I think the City Attorney and the Sheriff are skating on very thin ice stating that the record should not have been sealed because Josh was 18 when this was all reported.   Maybe later when I can find it, I will be able to post the transcript,  but last night on Kelly's show she said that a judge declared those records SHOULD HAVE BEEN sealed.
> 
> However - back to the huge public outcry that Christians are somehow above making mistakes and should not, therefore, judge others - what a load of hooey.
> 
> From the interviews I watched (both nights) at NO TIME did either of the parents claim that somehow their son was not wrong. They completely think now and then that he WAS wrong. They did all the right things that they thought they should do, both to get their son help and to help the other children, and their family.
> 
> Good freaking grief.  Just because someone is very opinionated about moral issues and such, doesn't mean they don't make mistakes, fall from grace or any other thing of that sort.  This family obviously suffered - but they WORKED to get things right again.  They made decisions to HELP affect positive change in their own family.  How is that wrong?  They know right from wrong - they aren't "immune" from doing wrong and never do they claim to be immune from doing wrong.  It's what you do to correct that wrong, that counts.  It seems to me, from what I have seen in the interviews and such that they have done all they could in order to correct those wrongs.
> 
> I find it astounding that at the same time, a lot of these critics of the Duggars believe Bruce Jenner taking female hormones, growing tits, long hair, and fingernails and dressing up like Jayne Mansfield and posing on the cover of Vanity Fair is considered totally okay and perfectly fine because "that's who s/he feels like s/he is" and is not considered a mental illness.



Actually the records were not sealed because josh was an adult when the report was taken. If they wanted the protections of the juvenile system they should have reported it before he turned 18.



> But Cate says that the Springdale Police Department did not break any laws. "On May 20, 2015," his statement reads, "in full compliance with Arkansas law, the Springdale Police Department responded to a records request under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.
> 
> "The requested record was not sealed or expunged, and at the time the report was filed, the person listed in the report was an adult," the statement says.
> 
> "Any names of minors included in the report, as well as pronouns, were redacted from the report by the Springdale Police Department in compliance with Arkansas law prior to release."



http://www.people.com/article/josh-duggar-molestation-scandal-records-released-compliance-law


Also, people need to put the blame on the responsible parties. The media didn't do anything to these girls. Josh molested them and their parents covered it up until it was public information when it was finally reported. THEN the parents started down their '15 mins of fame' path. They chose the limelight.

Any negatives that came out of this are the result of Josh and his parents actions. Those girls were crying because josh molested them. Its a shame that the choices of the parents to delay reporting and then seek fame caused their daughters' victimization to be made public.


----------



## Bann

Midnightrider said:


> Actually the records were not sealed because josh was an adult when the report was taken. If they wanted the protections of the juvenile system they should have reported it before he turned 18.



The records were not sealed BUT they should have been, according to Judge Stacy Zimmerman.  Josh was a MINOR when he confessed these incidents to the police.  It was up to the police to prosecute, and at that time, they did not. 



> (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
> 
> KELLY: There was also pushback today on the Duggars claim that the police report detailing Josh's behavior was improperly released. The city attorney of Springdale who authorized the disclosure here said to The Kelly File tonight that the police report was not under seal or protected by law.  He says Josh, while a minor, when he committed these acts, was 18 at the time the police investigated his behavior. The Duggar Family says that's nonsense, saying the records were protected. *It turns out a judge agrees with them. "The Kelly File" confirming that an Arkansas juvenile court judge, Stacy Zimmerman has issued an order siding with the Duggars finding that the release year was illegal and that these records should never have been produced. She ordered the police to destroy any remaining copies. So the judge says one thing, the city attorney says another. Who's right? * Joining me now, Arthur Aidala, Fox News Legal Analyst and Criminal Defense Attorney and Mark Eiglarsh who is also a Criminal Defense Attorney and a Former Prosecutor. Mark, who's right?





> EIGLARSH: But I know what Arthur is going to say, I know how he thinks. *The statute is very clear. Let's go to the Arkansas code 928217.  It makes it very clear that any reports, any memorandums, correspondents concerning juveniles shall -- meaning must not be released to the public.*  There are a number of exceptions and "In Touch Weekly" is not on the list.  I'll tell you this. *The investigation didn't start when he was an adult.  It started when he was a juvenile in 2003, when he walked into the police station and confessed his involvement in these abhorrent offenses.*http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2...ggars-respond-to-their-critics-on-kelly-file/


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> I don't really understand what the haters hope to accomplish with all this vitriol toward Josh Duggar.  Just to trash him because you all have nothing better to think about?  This situation has been resolved for years.  Years!  So why is it still a thing?



This is the war on Christianity.  Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl, at which he fled the country to evade prosecution.  He is praised by the Hollywood crowd.  He receive an stinking academy award in which the Hollywood loons gave him huge cheers.  The same type of people that are condemning Josh Duggar for what he did at 14, are silent with the likes of Polanski.  When there are so many other really bad 'actors' in our entertainment industry, and their behavior is not only ignored but some are cheered as heroes, it's pretty obvious to me what this is about.


----------



## Midnightrider

Bann said:


> The records were not sealed BUT they should have been, according to Judge Stacy Zimmerman.  Josh was a MINOR when he confessed these incidents to the police.  It was up to the police to prosecute, and at that time, they did not.


He wasn't a minor at the time the police report in question was taken. BUt that is really beside the point. Josh is the person responsible for his sister's distress, not the media. Josh molested them and their parents chose to become reality stars knowing that this was out there. Its a shame, but they have no one to blame but family.


PsyOps said:


> This is the war on Christianity.  Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl, at which he fled the country to evade prosecution.  He is praised by the Hollywood crowd.  He receive an stinking academy award in which the Hollywood loons gave him huge cheers.  The same type of people that are condemning Josh Duggar for what he did at 14, are silent with the likes of Polanski.  When there are so many other really bad 'actors' in our entertainment industry, and their behavior is not only ignored but some are cheered as heroes, it's pretty obvious to me what this is about.



no, we aren't. We are condeming both, this isn't an either or.
You on the otherhand are trying to say that Polanski was wrong but that the duggars should get a pass.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> You on the otherhand are trying to say that Polanski was wrong but that the duggars should get a pass.



So you think that what Josh Duggar did is on the same moral level as what Polanski did?

Anyway, we've been discussing this for over two weeks.  That is ridiculous and WAY! more attention than it deserves.  So why this national obsession with someone that most people don't even know who he is?


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> So you think that what Josh Duggar did is on the same moral level as what Polanski did?
> 
> Anyway, we've been discussing this for over two weeks.  That is ridiculous and WAY! more attention than it deserves.  So why this national obsession with someone that most people don't even know who he is?



I'm not the one trying to draw comparisions, Psy is. But yes, molesting girls in their sleep is on the same morally bankrupt 'level' as drugging one and molesting them.

Its a "national obesssion" (not that i agree with that charecterization) because the Duggars attention whored their family into a position of B rate 'fame'.....


----------



## Bann

Midnightrider said:


> He wasn't a minor at the time the police report in question was taken. BUt that is really beside the point.



No  - that IS the point. The first time he reported it was a confession to the police.  You and the city attorney, and the Chief of Police are skating around on thin ice with semantics.  It just so happens a JUDGE thinks so, too, so she had the records destroyed.

You can argue all day with the Arkansas statute, doesn't make you right.  :shrug:


----------



## Midnightrider

Bann said:


> No  - that IS the point. The first time he reported it was a confession to the police.  You and the city attorney, and the Chief of Police are skating around on thin ice with semantics.  It just so happens a JUDGE thinks so, too, so she had the records destroyed.
> 
> You can argue all day with the Arkansas statute, doesn't make you right.  :shrug:



Judges can be wrong too you know, the city attorney seems to think the law is on their side. 

what is not in question is that at the time of the 2006 report Josh was an adult and the recoprds were not sealed.


remember, this is the point :

Josh is the person responsible for his sister's distress, not the media. Josh molested them and their parents chose to become reality stars knowing that this was out there. Its a shame, but they have no one to blame but family.


----------



## Bann

Midnightrider said:


> Judges can be wrong too you know, the city attorney seems to think the law is on their side.
> 
> what is not in question is that at the time of the 2006 report Josh was an adult and the recoprds were not sealed.
> 
> remember, this is the point :
> 
> Josh is the person responsible for his sister's distress, not the media. Josh molested them and their parents chose to become reality stars knowing that this was out there. Its a shame, but they have no one to blame but family.


   Have the last word.  The state law speaks for itself.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> I'm not the one trying to draw comparisions, Psy is. But yes, molesting girls in their sleep is on the same morally bankrupt 'level' as drugging one and molesting them.



Plus in one instance we're talking about a young teenager; in the other we're talking about an adult man.

But if you think that's the same thing, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Midnightrider

Bann said:


> Have the last word.  The state law speaks for itself.



what law was broken by the city attorney when they released the FOIA info?
Because the city attorney and police cheif say none.


why dont you try putting the blame where it belongs, on the molester?

Or do you blame the media for all molestations?


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> Plus in one instance we're talking about a young teenager; in the other we're talking about an adult man.
> 
> But if you think that's the same thing, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.



so you think the age of the molestor makes it worse? 

I think being molested by a family member and then being forced to live with your molester is a pretty rough row to hoe.


----------



## GURPS

Midnightrider said:


> ....  drugging one and molesting them.





Polanski sodomized that teen age girl, he was an adult


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> so you think the age of the molestor makes it worse?
> 
> I think being molested by a family member and then being forced to live with your molester is a pretty rough row to hoe.



And I think you're manufacturing outrage and going somewhat off the rails in your zeal to do so.

The girls have already said they don't even remember it, or if they do they're over it.  For some reason you've decided to not be over it on their behalf, and I know you have better things to worry about.  This can't possibly be the most important thing in your world.

You're to the point that you have equated an adult man who drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year old girl to a young teenage boy who fondled a girl.  Those are not even close to equal.  They're just not and you're not going to convince too many people that they are.

-30-


----------



## Midnightrider

GURPS said:


> Polanski sodomized that teen age girl, he was an adult



duggar molested that 5 yo and he was her brother :shrug:


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> And I think you're manufacturing outrage and going somewhat off the rails in your zeal to do so.
> 
> The girls have already said they don't even remember it, or if they do they're over it.  For some reason you've decided to not be over it on their behalf, and I know you have better things to worry about.  This can't possibly be the most important thing in your world.
> 
> You're to the point that you have equated an adult man who drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year old girl to a young teenage boy who fondled a girl.  Those are not even close to equal.  They're just not and you're not going to convince too many people that they are.
> 
> -30-



i never once said they were equal, nor am i "outraged".

I just see both as sexual assualt. you can try to excuse one if you want, but you know deep down that you wouldn't if either the rape or the molestation happened to your daughter. you can BS around that if you want, but we both know its true.


BTW, those girls didn't look to 'over it' in that interview. That was real emotional distress they were showing and it was the result of being molested. Put the blame where it belongs.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Josh is the person responsible for his sister's distress, not the media. Josh molested them and their parents chose to become reality stars knowing that this was out there. Its a shame, but they have no one to blame but family.



Josh was responsible for the distress a dozen or more years ago.  That distress had been dealt with, forgiven, and the victims able to move on. 

The media are responsible for the current - day revictimization.  Their stress today is not the result of what they went through back then, but rather what they're going through today.   The loss of privacy on such an intimate issue is a traumatic event in and of itself.  

That the family put themselves on TV does not mitigate their privacy on issues they choose to not make public.  Ignorant bastards that would make such an incident public are truly disgusting.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> i never once said they were equal, nor am i "outraged".
> 
> I just see both as sexual assualt. you can try to excuse one if you want, but you know deep down that you wouldn't if either the rape or the molestation happened to your daughter. you can BS around that if you want, but we both know its true.
> 
> 
> BTW, those girls didn't look to 'over it' in that interview. That was real emotional distress they were showing and it was the result of being molested. Put the blame where it belongs.



Why do you have such an obsessive vendetta against this Duggar person?


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> Why do you have such an obsessive vendetta against this Duggar person?



They are Christians.  Midnight has a certain antipathy towards Christians.  Given they live this life of morals and such, a Christian child MUST be held to a higher standard of accountability than a pedophile adult.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> no, we aren't. We are condeming both, this isn't an either or.
> You on the otherhand are trying to say that Polanski was wrong but that the duggars should get a pass.



You make obvious that you really don't read what people post.  I have posted numerous times that NO ONE - ME INCLUDED -  approves of what Josh Duggar did.  No one gives him a pass.  I'm certainly not going to put what a 14 year old on the same plane as what an adult does.  The family dealt with it.  It's over.  Yet you haters just want to stir #### up in peoples' lives to ruin their lives - things that happened 14 years ago; the family has long since moved past this - all because you have a problem with their lifestyle.  The kid screwed up.  The family dealt with it.  Josh has long since married and has kids.  Two of the girls are now married and have kids.  They all seem to be well-adjusted despite the incidents.  No evidence of this ever happening again since he got help.  The show has been pulled and you're still not happy.  Let it go for crying out loud.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> Why do you have such an obsessive vendetta against this Duggar person?


I have no vendetta, nor am I obsessed.


PsyOps said:


> They are Christians.  Midnight has a certain antipathy towards Christians.  Given they live this life of morals and such, a Christian child MUST be held to a higher standard of accountability than a pedophile adult.


That's retarded. Please show where I have made any comments regarding the Duggars religion or said I thought they should be held to a higher standard. They should be held to exactly the same standard as everyone else. 



PsyOps said:


> *You make obvious that you really don't read what people post*.  I have posted numerous times that NO ONE - ME INCLUDED -  approves of what Josh Duggar did.  No one gives him a pass.  I'm certainly not going to put what a 14 year old on the same plane as what an adult does.  The family dealt with it.  It's over.  Yet you haters just want to stir #### up in peoples' lives to ruin their lives - things that happened 14 years ago; the family has long since moved past this - all because you have a problem with their lifestyle.  The kid screwed up.  The family dealt with it.  Josh has long since married and has kids.  Two of the girls are now married and have kids.  They all seem to be well-adjusted despite the incidents.  No evidence of this ever happening again since he got help.  The show has been pulled and you're still not happy.  Let it go for crying out loud.




:kilingme

Maybe you should give it a try some time.....

There certainly are people that are dismissing his actions as 'fondling' by a teenager. V, jinx, and TP think and have said this was normal. It ain't. It was molestation. That's my problem with it. 

Now I will challenge you to go back and read all of my posts on the subject and then show where I have criticized their lifestyle or religion in any way. My knock with them is that they did not report a very serious crime.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Josh was responsible for the distress a dozen or more years ago.  That distress had been dealt with, forgiven, and the victims able to move on.
> 
> The media are responsible for the current - day revictimization.  Their stress today is not the result of what they went through back then, but rather what they're going through today.   The loss of privacy on such an intimate issue is a traumatic event in and of itself.
> 
> That the family put themselves on TV does not mitigate their privacy on issues they choose to not make public.  Ignorant bastards that would make such an incident public are truly disgusting.



No, what is disgusting is that a guy molested his sisters and it obviously affected them. They weren't upset by the attention or notoriety of being a public figure. The family had been for years, and not just on their show. Their privacy was sold. They were fine with it.

I agree that they were 'revictimized' I just disagree on who was responsible for that. Their brother hold most of that responsibility, their parents the rest. The media only found a public record. Josh committed the crime.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> No, what is disgusting is that a guy molested his sisters and it obviously affected them. They weren't upset by the attention or notoriety of being a public figure. The family had been for years, and not just on their show. Their privacy was sold. They were fine with it.



Well, you certainly know the Duggar girls better than their parents or anyone else, so I will defer to your expertise.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> I have no vendetta, nor am I obsessed.




*obsess*
[uh b-ses]

verb (used with object)
1.
to dominate or preoccupy the thoughts, feelings, or desires of (a person); beset, trouble, or haunt persistently or abnormally:
Suspicion obsessed him.
verb (used without object)
*2.
to think about something unceasingly or persistently; dwell obsessively upon something.*


*vendetta*
[ven-det-uh]

noun
1.
a private feud in which the members of the family of a murdered person seek to avenge the murder by killing the slayer or one of the slayer's relatives, especially such vengeance as once practiced in Corsica and parts of Italy.
*2.
any prolonged and bitter feud, rivalry, contention, or the like:*
a political vendetta.

If you say so.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> No, what is disgusting is that a guy molested his sisters and it obviously affected them. They weren't upset by the attention or notoriety of being a public figure. The family had been for years, and not just on their show. Their privacy was sold. They were fine with it.
> 
> I agree that they were 'revictimized' I just disagree on who was responsible for that. Their brother hold most of that responsibility, their parents the rest. The media only found a public record. Josh committed the crime.



I do find the molestation morally reprehensible, but the traumatic events the girls face this decade are the release of private information.  The family is on TV, but they don't show them in the bathroom or their first make out session or getting a pap smear or any of a number of intimate, private situations.  Saying that they are fine with it because they televise their vacations and birthday parties is pretty weak, even for your positions.

There are two traumatizing events and one was long since over, the other a new one by a vindictive group out to harm the family.  It's very clear.


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> Well, you certainly know the Duggar girls better than their parents or anyone else, so I will defer to your expertise.



Which part are you disagreeing with, that it is disgusting he molested his sisters or that their parents sold their privacy and they enjoyed the limelight?


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> *obsess*
> [uh b-ses]
> 
> verb (used with object)
> 1.
> to dominate or preoccupy the thoughts, feelings, or desires of (a person); beset, trouble, or haunt persistently or abnormally:
> Suspicion obsessed him.
> verb (used without object)
> *2.
> to think about something unceasingly or persistently; dwell obsessively upon something.*
> 
> 
> *vendetta*
> [ven-det-uh]
> 
> noun
> 1.
> a private feud in which the members of the family of a murdered person seek to avenge the murder by killing the slayer or one of the slayer's relatives, especially such vengeance as once practiced in Corsica and parts of Italy.
> *2.
> any prolonged and bitter feud, rivalry, contention, or the like:*
> a political vendetta.
> 
> If you say so.





Looks like everyone on somd is obsessed about everything.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Maybe you should give it a try some time.....
> 
> There certainly are people that are dismissing his actions as 'fondling' by a teenager. V, jinx, and TP think and have said this was normal. It ain't. It was molestation. That's my problem with it.
> 
> Now I will challenge you to go back and read all of my posts on the subject and then show where I have criticized their lifestyle or religion in any way. My knock with them is that they did not report a very serious crime.



Here we go again.  You obvious have not read the police report where it stated that the ‘crime/incident’ was “Forcible FONDLING”.  I completely get you’re going to find a way to exaggerate this into RAPE or some other heavier crime; so you just right into your MO of making up your own facts to make yourself right. 

If you’re not on this obsession with the Duggars because of their religion, then perhaps you could enlighten us all as to why you're are so obsessed with something that happened 14 years ago, Josh was a child, the kids forgave him, the family resolved the problem, there is no evidence he ever did it again; and as far as the family is concerned is done and over with.  Why isn’t it done and over with with you?


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Looks like everyone on somd is obsessed about everything.



The other obsession you have................................ denial!


----------



## rdytogo

PsyOps said:


> Here we go again.  You obvious have not read the police report where it stated that the *‘crime/incident’ was “Forcible FONDLING”.  *I completely get you’re going to find a way to exaggerate this into RAPE or some other heavier crime; so you just right into your MO of making up your own facts to make yourself right.





> Originally Posted by Midnightrider
> 
> Maybe you should give it a try some time.....
> 
> There certainly are people that are dismissing his actions as *'fondling'* by a teenager. V, jinx, and TP think and have said this was normal. It ain't. It was molestation. That's my problem with it.
> 
> Now I will challenge you to go back and read all of my posts on the subject and then show where I have criticized their lifestyle or religion in any way. My knock with them is that they did not report a *very serious crime*.



I haven't read much else in this thread, but where is he making this more than what it is?  Forcible FONDLING sounds pretty serious to me!


----------



## PsyOps

rdytogo said:


> I haven't read much else in this thread, but where is he making this more than what it is?  Forcible FONDLING sounds pretty serious to me!



Why because of the word 'forcible'.  That word only mean 'unwelcome' or 'against one's will'.  What would you view as worse 'child molestation' or 'forcible fondling'?  Don't get me wrong; I think it's bad.  But it doesn't rise to the level of what I see Midnight asserting it is.  

The way I read "There certainly are people that are dismissing his actions as 'fondling' by a teenager" as people are downplaying this whole thing as a teen just fondling some kids when it's far worse than that.  I'm saying "no it's not".  By saying that, I am NOT trying to marginalize the seriousness of Josh's actions.  His actions are deplorable.  But they DO NOT rise to the level of rape.  That's not even my point.  This was a long-resolved issue within the Duggar family that was taken care of.  

Folks seem to think that because the Duggars decided to do a TV show, that every aspect of their lives is open game; therefore some are going to exploit with a vengeance that I can only conclude is born out of a certain level of hatred for them.  I really am not able to rationalize this vendetta any other way.  Midnight, and all the others that seem bent on disparaging this family over this have yet to explain why the obsession over it.


----------



## vraiblonde

rdytogo said:


> Forcible FONDLING sounds pretty serious to me!



Sure does.  Sounds like he held her down and molested her while she screamed and cried.  That's why the Duggar haters keep saying it.

Unfortunately for them, that's not the way it happened.


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> Midnight, and all the others that seem bent on disparaging this family over this have yet to explain why the obsession over it.



We, and the media, did not talk about Robin Williams' death for this long.

Just sayin'...


----------



## rdytogo

PsyOps said:


> Why because of the word 'forcible'.  That word only mean 'unwelcome' or 'against one's will'.  What would you view as worse 'child molestation' or 'forcible fondling'?  Don't get me wrong; I think it's bad.  But it doesn't rise to the level of what I see Midnight asserting it is.



No, it was the fondling which made me believe it was a serious crime.  Forced, coerced or done without one's consent is the same to me.


----------



## rdytogo

vraiblonde said:


> Sure does.  Sounds like he held her down and molested her while she screamed and cried.  That's why the Duggar haters keep saying it.
> 
> Unfortunately for them, that's not the way it happened.



If that is the image the charge invokes, so be it.  I like the Duggars and will be sorry to see the show end.  That doesn't change my mind that this guy is a creep and hasn't been held accountable for his actions.  There are people on here who are dismissing his actions as juvenile behavior.  I don't see it that way.  I think juveniles are capable of experimentation, but when they continue that behavior after getting caught, in my opinion, it's quite a bit more than that!


----------



## This_person

rdytogo said:


> No, it was the fondling which made me believe it was a serious crime.  Forced, coerced or done without one's consent is the same to me.



This is only a point of discussion because of asinine positions like





Midnightrider said:


> [Y]es, molesting girls in their sleep is on the same morally bankrupt 'level' as drugging one and molesting them.


Which were in response to whether Duggar and Polanski had actions that should be viewed as the same.  No reasonable person could believe that the two are comparable.  What Duggar did was clearly wrong, on the order of an eighth grader smacking around a kindergartener on the playground.  What Polanski did was clearly wrong, on the order of a grown man slicing up a seventh grader one piece at a time while laughing at their pain as they slowly bled to death.

I don't see those two things as morally equivalent, but MR did, then said that he never said that, and then defended as being accurate while claiming it isn't.

That's why we're even discussing it.


----------



## rdytogo

This_person said:


> I don't see those two things as morally equivalent, but MR did, then said that he never said that, and then defended as being accurate while claiming it isn't.
> 
> That's why we're even discussing it.



Your analogy's are disturbing.  Are you equating what Duggar did to slapping a child on a playground?  If so, then you lose me.

As far as the rest of what you wrote, I completely agree that Polanski's crime was much greater.  He raped the girl.  If, however he had just drugged her and sexually assaulted her as did Duggar, then I would see no difference.  Both crimes however are morally reprehensible.  I'm not sure if there is a degree of morally reprehensible greater than the other.  Different, but one is no less criminal than the other.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> We, and the media, did not talk about Robin Williams' death for this long.
> 
> Just sayin'...



And again, while I know Midnight doesn't condone what Polanski did, Hollywood propped this child rapist up as a hero; the Hollywood crowd cheered this man and the media (and people like Midnight) was silent.  This is what makes it blatantly obvious to me that it's about their faith and an opportunity for the anti-Christian crowd to find another way to point out what hypocrites Christians are.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> Here we go again.  You obvious have not read the police report where it stated that the ‘crime/incident’ was “Forcible FONDLING”.  I completely get you’re going to find a way to exaggerate this into RAPE or some other heavier crime; so you just right into your MO of making up your own facts to make yourself right.
> 
> If you’re not on this obsession with the Duggars because of their religion, then perhaps you could enlighten us all as to why you're are so obsessed with something that happened 14 years ago, Josh was a child, the kids forgave him, the family resolved the problem, there is no evidence he ever did it again; and as far as the family is concerned is done and over with.  Why isn’t it done and over with with you?


Keep building those straw men, it will be easier than fining where I called this rape


rdytogo said:


> I haven't read much else in this thread, but where is he making this more than what it is?  Forcible FONDLING sounds pretty serious to me!


Thank you. Many here want to pretend this was nothing and normal but we all know they would be signing a different tune if a 14 yo molested their 5, 8, 10, or 12 yo.


PsyOps said:


> Why because of the word 'forcible'.  That word only mean 'unwelcome' or 'against one's will'.  What would you view as worse 'child molestation' or 'forcible fondling'?  Don't get me wrong; I think it's bad.  But it doesn't rise to the level of what I see Midnight asserting it is.
> 
> The way I read "There certainly are people that are dismissing his actions as 'fondling' by a teenager" as people are downplaying this whole thing as a teen just fondling some kids when it's far worse than that.  I'm saying "no it's not".  By saying that, I am NOT trying to marginalize the seriousness of Josh's actions.  His actions are deplorable.  But they DO NOT rise to the level of rape.  That's not even my point.  This was a long-resolved issue within the Duggar family that was taken care of.
> 
> Folks seem to think that because the Duggars decided to do a TV show, that every aspect of their lives is open game; therefore some are going to exploit with a vengeance that I can only conclude is born out of a certain level of hatred for them.  I really am not able to rationalize this vendetta any other way.  Midnight, and all the others that seem bent on disparaging this family over this have yet to explain why the obsession over it.



molestation

n. the crime of sexual acts with children up to the age of 18, including touching of private parts, exposure of genitalia, taking of pornographic pictures, rape, inducement of sexual acts with the molester or with other children, and variations of these acts by pedophiles. Molestation also applies to incest by a relative with a minor family member, and any unwanted sexual acts with adults short of rape

Words have meaning. What josh Duggar did was molestation. I am not asserting that it was anything other than the unwanted touching of the private parts of his sisters and one other girl. 
If you go back and read the thread you will see many who have dismissed this as normal or 'playing doctor'. It wasn't.

While you are looking for those other things you claim I have said maybe you can find where I disparaged the family. I just disagree with the way they handled it and think josh hasn't owned up to his actions.


----------



## PsyOps

rdytogo said:


> No, it was the fondling which made me believe it was a serious crime.  Forced, coerced or done without one's consent is the same to me.



Sorry, I don't see a 14 year old fondling their sister as a serious crime.  I see it as a pretty serious problem, but not a crime.  You folks are showing what little you know about the mentality of a 14 year old and all the raving hormones that come with it.

But, I'll ask you...... Since already know Midnight have had his 14 year old son convicted as a pedophile... if it were your 14 year old son, would you have called the cops, had him arrested, had him hauled off to jail, trump up on rape charges, and thrown into juvy?  Or would you have tried to resolve it within the family, get him help, etc...?


----------



## rdytogo

PsyOps said:


> And again, while I know Midnight doesn't condone what Polanski did, Hollywood propped this child rapist up as a hero; the Hollywood crowd cheered this man and the media (and people like Midnight) was silent.  This is what makes it blatantly obvious to me that it's about their faith and an opportunity for the anti-Christian crowd to find another way to point out what hypocrites Christians are.



Well now I am admittedly just stirring the pot.....but let me ask.  Was there a thread about Roman Polanski where midnight commented that he wasn't bad?  If not, isn't your point just an assumption since he is saying that Polanski was bad?


----------



## This_person

rdytogo said:


> Your analogy's are disturbing.  Are you equating what Duggar did to slapping a child on a playground?  If so, then you lose me.
> 
> As far as the rest of what you wrote, I completely agree that Polanski's crime was much greater.  He raped the girl.  If, however he had just drugged her and sexually assaulted her as did Duggar, then I would see no difference.  Both crimes however are morally reprehensible.  I'm not sure if there is a degree of morally reprehensible greater than the other.  Different, but one is no less criminal than the other.



I wasn't equating the two, I offered an analogous pair of examples to show how different I believe Duggar and Polanski to be.  The level of criminality is also far different.  An adult forcibly raping a barely pubescent child certainly faces a different charge than a child fondling another child without anything even approaching penetration.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Keep building those straw men, it will be easier than fining where I called this rape



When all else has failed, simply call someone's points a 'strawman'.  You sure to throw that around a lot.

It was Fondling.  What else would you call it?


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> And again, while I know Midnight doesn't condone what Polanski did, Hollywood propped this child rapist up as a hero; the Hollywood crowd cheered this man and the media (and people like Midnight) was silent.  This is what makes it blatantly obvious to me that it's about their faith and an opportunity for the anti-Christian crowd to find another way to point out what hypocrites Christians are.


Suck it #######. I have said many negative things about Polanski. You really need therapy


PsyOps said:


> Sorry, I don't see a 14 year old fondling their sister as a serious crime.  I see it as a pretty serious problem, but not a crime.  You folks are showing what little you know about the mentality of a 14 year old and all the raving hormones that come with it.
> 
> But, I'll ask you...... Since already know Midnight have had his 14 year old son convicted as a pedophile... if it were your 14 year old son, would you have called the cops, had him arrested, had him hauled off to jail, trump up on rape charges, and thrown into juvy?  Or would you have tried to resolve it within the family, get him help, etc...?



He also fondled another girl. That's 5 girls. That is a serious crime.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> When all else has failed, simply call someone's points a 'strawman'.  You sure to throw that around a lot.
> 
> It was Fondling.  What else would you call it?


You do a lot of it.


*molestation*

n*. the crime of sexual acts with children up to the age of 18, including touching of private parts, exposure of genitalia*, taking of pornographic pictures, rape, inducement of sexual acts with the molester or with other children, and variations of these acts by pedophiles. *Molestation also applies to incest by a relative with a minor family member*, and any unwanted sexual acts with adults short of rape


----------



## rdytogo

PsyOps said:


> Sorry, I don't see a 14 year old fondling their sister as a serious crime.  I see it as a pretty serious problem, but not a crime.  You folks are showing what little you know about the mentality of a 14 year old and all the raving hormones that come with it.
> 
> But, I'll ask you...... Since already know Midnight have had his 14 year old son convicted as a pedophile... if it were your 14 year old son, would you have called the cops, had him arrested, had him hauled off to jail, trump up on rape charges, and thrown into juvy?  Or would you have tried to resolve it within the family, get him help, etc...?



Not the first time.  The second time, absolutely!  I have an obligation to protect all of my children.  If one is harming another, I am going to protect the innocent.

If you don't see a fourteen year old fondling as a crime...well God bless you.  I have nothing more to say to that.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> You do a lot of it.
> 
> 
> *molestation*
> 
> n. the crime of sexual acts with children up to the age of 18, including touching of private parts, exposure of genitalia, taking of pornographic pictures, rape, inducement of sexual acts with the molester or with other children, and variations of these acts by pedophiles. *Molestation also applies to incest by a relative with a minor family member*, and any unwanted sexual acts with adults short of rape



Why do you suppose that the police report (that obviously never happened since they never went to the police) uses "fondling" instead of "molestation"?


----------



## rdytogo

This_person said:


> Why do you suppose that the police report (that obviously never happened since they never went to the police) uses "fondling" instead of "molestation"?



Because fondling is a legal definition where as molestation can mean many different things.  It's the way the law is written.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> i never once said they were equal.


Um, what did you mean here then?





Midnightrider said:


> [Y]es, molesting girls in their sleep is on the same morally bankrupt 'level' as drugging one and molesting them.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Um, what did you mean here then?




I said what I meant


----------



## This_person

rdytogo said:


> Because fondling is a legal definition where as molestation can mean many different things.  It's the way the law is written.



There's no charge that is "molestation" in Arkansas?


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> I said what I meant



  So, they ARE morally equivalent, they're just not morally equivalent.

Hard to lose a point when you emphatically agree with both sides.

You have gone from "strawman" to obscenities to being bored.  If nothing else, you are predictable both at being wrong and with how you act when it's obvious that you are wrong.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Why do you suppose that the police report (that obviously never happened since they never went to the police) uses "fondling" instead of "molestation"?



The police actually used 'sexually abused' in the report. That report was made after the 'sexual abuse' had been reported by a third party through a hot line.

Didn't mean to interrupt your 'being right'


----------



## rdytogo

This_person said:


> There's no charge that is "molestation" in Arkansas?



No, none that I can find.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> The police actually used 'sexually abused' in the report. That report was made after the 'sexual abuse' had been reported by a third party through a hot line.
> 
> Didn't mean to interrupt your 'being right'



The report was made then, but that was three years after the first time the Duggars went to the police.

What was the actual charge/allegation?


----------



## Bann

vraiblonde said:


> We, and the media, did not talk about Robin Williams' death for this long.
> 
> Just sayin'...



Seriously.  It doesn't rise to the level of re-hashing it ad nauseam.      I only have so much forum time each day.


----------



## rdytogo

This_person said:


> The report was made then, but that was three years after the first time the Duggars went to the police.
> 
> What was the actual charge/allegation?



Are you seriously arguing about this for this long and you don't know what the charge or allegation made was?


----------



## littlelady

Bann said:


> Seriously.  It doesn't rise to the level of re-hashing it ad nauseam.      I only have so much forum time each day.



Now, that right there is funny!    Especially using the words ad nauseam.

One question.  Why does your forum time have anything to do with what people post on this forum?  Actually, two questions.  Doesn't this forum's livelihood depend on how much people use it whether it be the forums, the news, the classifieds, etc. ?  Just askin'.  :shrug:


----------



## This_person

rdytogo said:


> Are you seriously arguing about this for this long and you don't know what the charge or allegation made was?



I absolutely do.  "Forcible Fondling".  Not rape, not pedophilia, not sexual assault, not molestation.

I wanted to know if MR knew.


----------



## Midnightrider

HTML:
	






rdytogo said:


> Are you seriously arguing about this for this long and you don't know what the charge or allegation made was?



He is just arguing to argue.



This_person said:


> I absolutely do.  "Forcible Fondling".  Not rape, not pedophilia, not sexual assault, not molestation.
> 
> I wanted to know if MR knew.



You obviously haven't read the report, and maybe not even a full article on the subject.


----------



## rdytogo

This_person said:


> I absolutely do.  "Forcible Fondling".  Not rape, not pedophilia, not sexual assault, not molestation.
> 
> I wanted to know if MR knew.



So you don't think forcible fondling is a sexual assault?


----------



## This_person

rdytogo said:


> So you don't think forcible fondling is a sexual assault?



I do.  Not morally equivalent to an adult raping a thirteen year old, but an assault of a sexual nature of course.

I also know that when you go to the police three years before a report is filed, you've actually gone to the police.

I also know that all involved received counseling, and that the child who perpetrated the actions received additional punishment as well.

I also know that the victims forgave the perpetrator, moved on with their lives, and then we're traumatised by the city and the tabloids and then the rest of the media for gross violation of their privacy, which is an entirely new and different trauma than the original act.

No matter how many times it is falsely placed on me to the contrary, I believe that the original act was a big deal. I also know that it is not hypocritical to have had problems in your own family and yet speak of the ills you see in others.  Believing in your own understanding of the Bible doesn't mean that your family has never made a mistake.  It means that you recognize and acknowledge the mistake and take repentant actions.

"These are the facts, and they are indisputable."


----------



## Bann

littlelady said:


> Now, that right there is funny!    Especially using the words ad nauseam.
> 
> One question.  Why does your forum time have anything to do with what people post on this forum?  Actually, two questions.  Doesn't this forum's livelihood depend on how much people use it whether it be the forums, the news, the classifieds, etc. ?  Just askin'.  :shrug:




Are you daft?  MY forum time is MY forum time.   I couldn't care less what other people do with their forum time.  I participate in treads I wish to participate in and don't participate in reads I find unworthy of my time.  And I'm not interested in re-hashing the Duggar story ad nauseam.    Your mileage may vary.  :shrug:


----------



## littlelady

Bann said:


> Are you daft?  MY forum time is MY forum time.   I couldn't care less what other people do with their forum time.  I participate in treads I wish to participate in and don't participate in reads I find unworthy of my time.  And I'm not interested in re-hashing the Duggar story ad nauseam.    Your mileage may vary.  :shrug:



No, not daft, just posting my opinion.  That is what makes the world go round and this forum go round.  And, you are right about the mileage.  Soooo, if you are not interested, why did you post again?  I guess that is a third question.  As all in life, you can't have it both ways. :shrug:


----------



## rdytogo

This_person said:


> I do.  Not morally equivalent to an adult raping a thirteen year old, but an assault of a sexual nature of course.



Could you tell me what level of morally reprehensible sexually assaulting a five year old is compared to the morally reprehensible act of an 18 year old raping a thirteen year old?  I didn't know there were different degrees of immoral acts.  I'm looking forward to learning though.  



This_person said:


> I also know that when you go to the police three years before a report is filed, you've actually gone to the police.



Ok.  I'm certain I don't know why you are bringing this up, but ok.



This_person said:


> I also know that all involved received counseling, and that the child who perpetrated the actions received additional punishment as well.  I also know that the victims forgave the perpetrator



You do?  Are you certain ALL of the victim's have forgiven him?  Have you heard from ALL the victims?  What punishment was the perpetrator given?  Jail sentence?  Chain gang?  No ice cream for a week?  Please enlighten me.  



This_person said:


> then we're traumatised by the city and the tabloids and then the rest of the media for gross violation of their privacy, which is an entirely new and different trauma than the original act.



On this I will agree.  Someone's head should roll for causing further abuse to these victims.



This_person said:


> No matter how many times it is falsely placed on me to the contrary, I believe that the original act was a big deal.



Ok.  What are  you trying to argue then?  The guy sexually assaulted multiple victims.   If someone in your family sexually assaulted multiple children when he wa fourteen, would you allow him to watch your children?


----------



## Bann

littlelady said:


> No, not daft, just posting my opinion.  That is what makes the world go round and this forum go round.  And, you are right about the mileage.  Soooo, if you are not interested, why did you post again?  I guess that is a third question.  As all in life, you can't have it both ways.



You weren't posting an opinion, you asked questions.   If you weren't such an idiot, you would have understood what I meant, as I was pretty clear that the DUGGAR STORY wasn't worth re-hashing ad nauseam.  

Sooo,  Littlelady - go back into your hidey hole and stay there like a good little troll.  Oh, wait - it's after 10:00 when you come out drunk posting. Time for me to go to bed now.  That is all.  Nite Nite.


----------



## littlelady

Bann said:


> You weren't posting an opinion, you asked questions.   If you weren't such an idiot, you would have understood what I meant, as I was pretty clear that the DUGGAR STORY wasn't worth re-hashing ad nauseam.
> 
> Sooo,  Littlelady - go back into your hidey hole and stay there like a good little troll.  Oh, wait - it's after 10:00 when you come out drunk posting. Time for me to go to bed now.  That is all.  Nite Nite.



This is what I am talking about. Anything to explain away your venom.  You and your soap box, holier than thou comments; and you can't have it both ways.  Did I hit the Bann nerve?  No one should question you, and you feel untouchable?  You posted that you were sick of the Duggar subject, but posted again.  That says it right there.  I never had a hidey hole, I am not a troll, and I am not drinking, and you know that.  I have always posted what I think and was honest as mamatutu.  Did  you celebrate the day I got banned?  Do I bother you that much that you want to consistently tear into me?Does the truth hurt?  According to you, you don't have time for members like me.  Live with the fact that you are a hypocrite.  I feel sorry for you.  Carry on, Bann.  

And, I am surprised you used the word 'idiot' to describe me considering you consider yourself a lady, and all that.  The thing is you and I are not anon, and I remain the lady.  You go, Bann!


----------



## Bann

*Original post at 10:32*


littlelady said:


> this is what i am talking about.  You and your soap box, holier than though comments, and you can't have it both ways.  Did i hit the bann nerve?  No one should question you, and you feel untouchable?  You posted that you were sick of the duggar subject, but posted again.  That says it right there.  I never had a hidey hole, i am not a troll, and i am not drinking, and you know that.  I have always posted what i think and have been honest as mamatutu.  I am sure you celebrated the day i got banned.  Do i bother you that much that you want to tear into me, once again?  I think i do and the truth hurts.  Live with it.  I feel sorry for you.  Carry on, bann.





*Amended post at 11:17*


littlelady said:


> this is what i am talking about. *anything to explain away your venom.*  you and your soap box, holier than thou comments; and you can't have it both ways.  Did i hit the bann nerve?  No one should question you, and you feel untouchable?  You posted that you were sick of the duggar subject, but posted again.  That says it right there.  I never had a hidey hole, i am not a troll, and i am not drinking, and you know that.  I have always posted what i think and *was honest as* mamatutu.  Did  you celebrate the day i got banned? * do i bother you that much that you want to consistently tear into me?**does the truth hurt?  According to you, you don't have time for members like me.  live with the fact that you are a hypocrite.*  I feel sorry for you.  Carry on, bann.
> *
> and, i am surprised you used the word 'idiot' to describe me considering you consider yourself a lady, and all that.  The thing is you and i are not anon, and i remain the lady.  You go, bann!  *


----------



## officeguy

PsyOps said:


> You make obvious that you really don't read what people post.  I have posted numerous times that NO ONE - ME INCLUDED -  approves of what Josh Duggar did.  No one gives him a pass.  I'm certainly not going to put what a 14 year old on the same plane as what an adult does.  The family dealt with it.  It's over.  Yet you haters just want to stir #### up in peoples' lives to ruin their lives - things that happened 14 years ago; the family has long since moved past this - all because you have a problem with their lifestyle.  The kid screwed up.  The family dealt with it.  Josh has long since married and has kids.  Two of the girls are now married and have kids.  They all seem to be well-adjusted despite the incidents.  No evidence of this ever happening again since he got help.  The show has been pulled and you're still not happy.  Let it go for crying out loud.



From the interview with the girls it is pretty clear that for them this is not the distant past.


----------



## This_person

officeguy said:


> From the interview with the girls it is pretty clear that for them this is not the distant past.



Not any more... not since they've been traumatized again, this time by the police, attorney, and media.

I heard them repeatedly say they've forgiven him and moved on, but that this current-day violation devastates them.


----------



## Bann

littlelady said:


> This is what I am talking about. Anything to explain away your venom.  You and your soap box, holier than thou comments; and you can't have it both ways.  Did I hit the Bann nerve?  No one should question you, and you feel untouchable?  You posted that you were sick of the Duggar subject, but posted again.  That says it right there.  I never had a hidey hole, I am not a troll, and I am not drinking, and you know that.  I have always posted what I think and was honest as mamatutu.  Did  you celebrate the day I got banned?  Do I bother you that much that you want to consistently tear into me?Does the truth hurt?  According to you, you don't have time for members like me.  Live with the fact that you are a hypocrite.  I feel sorry for you.  Carry on, Bann.
> 
> And, I am surprised you used the word 'idiot' to describe me considering you consider yourself a lady, and all that.  The thing is you and I are not anon, and* I remain the lady. * You go, Bann!




 

You remain a raving, freakazoid lunatic whackadoodle cucamonga.    

Out of this entire thread, you picked my post to "question", so don't go around crying about it when I reply to you.


----------



## This_person

rdytogo said:


> Could you tell me what level of morally reprehensible sexually assaulting a five year old is compared to the morally reprehensible act of an 18 year old raping a thirteen year old?  I didn't know there were different degrees of immoral acts.  I'm looking forward to learning though.


Do you believe there is a difference between a father stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family and the guy who tortured a little kid and then murdered the family after getting somewhere around $40,000?  Those are both immoral acts, but I would not consider them being the same degree.

By the way, Polanski was not eighteen.


----------



## PsyOps

officeguy said:


> From the interview with the girls it is pretty clear that for them this is not the distant past.



And you get this where?  Have you seen the interview with Megyn Kelly?  Go to 17:10 where they said dredging this whole thing up is a "re-victimization that is a 1000 times worse.  THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY DEALT WITH.  WE'VE ALREADY FORGIVEN JOSH.  WE'VE ALREADY MOVED ON."  She said the InTouch story wasn't true, that everything was distorted.  They're all angry that this has been publicized.

Seems to me it was the 'distant past'.  They had moved on from it, and now people with a desire to ruin lives dredge up what children did, and portray this family as a bunch of out-of-control sexual predators.  The whole media frenzy is really pretty sick.


----------



## Hijinx

PsyOps said:


> And you get this where?  Have you seen the interview with Megyn Kelly?  Go to 17:10 where they said dredging this whole thing up is a "re-victimization that is a 1000 times worse.  THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY DEALT WITH.  WE'VE ALREADY FORGIVEN JOSH.  WE'VE ALREADY MOVED ON."  She said the InTouch story wasn't true, that everything was distorted.  They're all angry that this has been publicized.
> 
> Seems to me it was the 'distant past'.  They had moved on from it, and now people with a desire to ruin lives dredge up what children did, and portray this family as a bunch of out-of-control sexual predators.  The whole media frenzy is really pretty sick.



Most media frenzies are.  Unless you are a liberal, then there is no frenzy.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> And you get this where?  Have you seen the interview with Megyn Kelly?  Go to 17:10 where they said dredging this whole thing up is a "re-victimization that is a 1000 times worse.  THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY DEALT WITH.  WE'VE ALREADY FORGIVEN JOSH.  WE'VE ALREADY MOVED ON."  She said the InTouch story wasn't true, that everything was distorted.  They're all angry that this has been publicized.
> 
> Seems to me it was the 'distant past'.  They had moved on from it, and now people with a desire to ruin lives dredge up what children did, and portray this family as a bunch of out-of-control sexual predators.  The whole media frenzy is really pretty sick.



Who is portraying the family "as a bunch of out of control sexual predators"?


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> You're makingthe same mistake MR made.  No one is suggesting it is not a serious crime.  Everyone is suggesting that the perpetrator should be both properly disciplined and given psychological help, as should the victims as needed.   But let's be realistic,  it is not rape. The charge of fondling is the word on the report, not someone here.





vraiblonde said:


> You seriously consider a 14 year old boy copping a feel to be "mindless debauchery"?





vraiblonde said:


> I am unimpressed with his level of perversion.  A 14 year old boy copping a feel of his sisters' friends - big whoop.  At least one of the encounters is reported to be consensual and reciprocated, but nobody seems to care about that part.





Hijinx said:


> Show me a boy at 16 who hasn't tried to feel up a girl and I will show you a man who has a problem with his sexual identity.




Could you define no one and everyone?


----------



## vraiblonde

tblwdc said:


> Could you define no one and everyone?



In general, according to the media and assorted internet sources.  No, I didn't take a poll and get the opinion of every living person in the universe.  Sorry about that.


----------



## tblwdc

vraiblonde said:


> In general, according to the media and assorted internet sources.  No, I didn't take a poll and get the opinion of every living person in the universe.  Sorry about that.



That has nothing to do with what he said.  He said no one is saying this wasn't a serious crime.  YOU would be at least one person who has said that.


----------



## vraiblonde

tblwdc said:


> That has nothing to do with what he said.  He said no one is saying this wasn't a serious crime.  YOU would be at least one person who has said that.



I am the lone voice crying in the wilderness.  Do not pity me, for I am used to it.

I have said that I don't think a teenage boy groping his sisters is a serious crime.  I stand by that assessment.  But I am pretty much alone (meaning "in the extreme minority") in my opinion, and therefore TP's statement that "no one" is suggesting it isn't a serious crime gets to stand because by "no one" it was presumed that he meant "in general and for the most part".

Again, it's rare that someone takes a poll of every human being in the universe and determines definitively that "no one" or "everyone" has exactly the same opinion.  That shouldn't have to be specified in casual English conversation.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Who is portraying the family "as a bunch of out of control sexual predators"?



You are.


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> You are.



EVERYONE!!!

Or no one....not sure which.


----------



## tblwdc

PsyOps said:


> And you get this where?  Have you seen the interview with Megyn Kelly?  Go to 17:10 where they said dredging this whole thing up is a "re-victimization that is a 1000 times worse.  THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY DEALT WITH.  WE'VE ALREADY FORGIVEN JOSH.  WE'VE ALREADY MOVED ON."  She said the InTouch story wasn't true, that everything was distorted.  They're all angry that this has been publicized.
> 
> Seems to me it was the 'distant past'.  They had moved on from it, and now people with a desire to ruin lives dredge up what children did, and portray this family as a bunch of out-of-control sexual predators.  The whole media frenzy is really pretty sick.



In fairness though, that was only two of his victims.  Do we know if the others feel the same way?


----------



## tblwdc

vraiblonde said:


> I am the lone voice crying in the wilderness.  Do not pity me, for I am used to it.
> 
> I have said that I don't think a teenage boy groping his sisters is a serious crime.  I stand by that assessment.  But I am pretty much alone (meaning "in the extreme minority") in my opinion, and therefore TP's statement that "no one" is suggesting it isn't a serious crime gets to stand because by "no one" it was presumed that he meant "in general and for the most part".
> 
> Maybe you don't get what no one and everyone means.  He didn't say most people or very few.  He said no one.  A poll doesn't need to be taken when you have written word.
> 
> Again, it's rare that someone takes a poll of every human being in the universe and determines definitively that "no one" or "everyone" has exactly the same opinion.  That shouldn't have to be specified in casual English conversation.



That's fine.  You are entitled to your opinion.  For me, I haven't really made my mind up about this yet.  On the face, it seems disturbing that he has more than a couple victims and some are outside of his family.  Having said that, you replied to a post where I showed a guy he was wrong.  He said nobody was not saying these incidents were serious crimes and that everybody said they were.  I pointed out what you are now saying.  

What is it you want to argue about?


----------



## GURPS

tblwdc said:


> Could you define no one and everyone?





in relation to ?

a group of 10 no one would [probably] be 0
a group of 100 no one could be 0 probably less that 5
a group of 10,000 no one could be less than 1000
the population of the United States [aprox 325 million]  no one could be less that 10,000,000

'no one / everyone' is relative to the outrage being portrayed in the media ...
... everyone I know wants drugger hung in the city square [I have 10 friends on facebook]
... everyone I know Wants the drugger matter dropped - I have a blog follow by 10,000 people


----------



## PsyOps

tblwdc said:


> In fairness though, that was only two of his victims.  Do we know if the others feel the same way?



I really don't care.  It was something that happened 14 years ago, the family dealt with it, Josh got help and came back a better person, he has since gotten married and has kids, they all moved on with their lives.  Not one bit of this is anyone's business; but folks sure love to make it their business.

Dredging this up serves no other purpose than for people that hate people like the Duggars to take their cheap stabs at this family in an effort to ruin their lives.  Some people have nothing better to do in their pathetically hateful lives.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> You are.



ridiculous as usual....
please quote where i have done anything like that.



PsyOps said:


> I really don't care.  It was something that happened 14 years ago, the family dealt with it, Josh got help and came back a better person, he has since gotten married and has kids, they all moved on with their lives.  Not one bit of this is anyone's business; but folks sure love to make it their business.
> 
> Dredging this up serves no other purpose than for people that hate people like the Duggars to take their cheap stabs at this family in an effort to ruin their lives.  Some people have nothing better to do in their pathetically hateful lives.



no, this was a public record. there is no expectation of privacy. Its exactly the same for the duggars as it is for EVERYONE else. If you commit a crime and the police make a report, its a public record. Its a shame that this coming out now dredged up the bad memories for these girls, including the one that wasn't his sister. But that is really the fault of the parents for not handleing this properly when he was a minor and for thrusting their family into the public eye. If they hadn't chosen to put their family life on display no one would have known who they were even if this did come out.

put the blame where it belongs people.  you guys are usually all for exposing other peoples public records


----------



## vraiblonde

tblwdc said:


> What is it you want to argue about?



Not your pedantic nitpickery, that's for sure.


----------



## Bann

vraiblonde said:


> Not your pedantic nitpickery, that's for sure.




"pedantic nitpickery"     Love it!


----------



## tblwdc

GURPS said:


> in relation to ?
> 
> a group of 10 no one would [probably] be 0
> a group of 100 no one could be 0 probably less that 5
> a group of 10,000 no one could be less than 1000
> the population of the United States [aprox 325 million]  no one could be less that 10,000,000
> 
> 'no one / everyone' is relative to the outrage being portrayed in the media ...
> ... everyone I know wants drugger hung in the city square [I have 10 friends on facebook]
> ... everyone I know Wants the drugger matter dropped - I have a blog follow by 10,000 people



In the discussion this_person was having with midnight rider, no one and everyone was relevant to the people in this thread.  I'd say there are about 10 people commenting, so based on your conclusion, this_person was wrong.  

Where are you getting this formula any way?  Is this made up in your head?


----------



## tblwdc

vraiblonde said:


> Not your pedantic nitpickery, that's for sure.



You are the person who commented on MY post.  This_person was the one who was talking about people in this thread when he said NO ONE.  You are making assumptions in your silly little head about things and when shown to be wrong, attempt to belittle people.  It's a common tactic I've seen you use before.  My skin is as thick as your scull, so your attempts at insulting me are to no avail.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> That's fine.  You are entitled to your opinion.  For me, I haven't really made my mind up about this yet.  On the face, it seems disturbing that he has more than a couple victims and some are outside of his family.  Having said that, you replied to a post where I showed a guy he was wrong.  He said nobody was not saying these incidents were serious crimes and that everybody said they were.  I pointed out what you are now saying.
> 
> What is it you want to argue about?



I think what she said, and said well, is that I wasn't actually wrong.  She said that the vast majority of people on here who have been charged with saying it's no big deal have said it's a big deal.  Prior to my saying that, Vrai had not said (to the best of my recollection) that it wasn't something wrong.

In the strictest sense of the words, "no one" would mean absolutely not a single person on the face of the earth.  In the real world, where people just talk, "no one" means "none of the people you're accusing of this are saying what you're accusing them of".

So, if you need to be right, you are technically right.  If you want to talk like the average person does, I wasn't wrong.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> no, this was a public record. there is no expectation of privacy.


It would seem, based on the promise of privacy to the victims, that there actually WAS an expectation of privacy.  One of the problems with how this has been handled is that it is now less likely a victim will come forward for fear their story will be "leaked" as well.





> Its a shame that this coming out now dredged up the bad memories for these girls, including the one that wasn't his sister. But that is really the fault of the parents for not handleing this properly when he was a minor and for thrusting their family into the public eye. If they hadn't chosen to put their family life on display no one would have known who they were even if this did come out.
> 
> put the blame where it belongs people.  you guys are usually all for exposing other peoples public records


The family took the child to the police three years before the police report, so they handled it in the way you deemed "proper".  Or, besides counseling for all involved, punishment of the perpetrator, and police involvement at the time, what else would you have had them do?

Being "on display", as I mentioned previously, is not a reason to suggest they have no privacy.  Should their medical records be public?  Should their discussions with lawyers no longer have confidentiality?  How about private fears they discuss with family members when the cameras are not on - should their house be bugged to make sure those things are public?  

Thinking that just because they're on TV they have no right to privacy is lunacy.


----------



## Bann

tblwdc said:


> It's a common tactic I've seen you use before.




Surrrre you have. You've only been posting on the forums abt 40 days.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> I think what she said, and said well, is that I wasn't actually wrong.  She said that the vast majority of people on here who have been charged with saying it's no big deal have said it's a big deal.  Prior to my saying that, Vrai had not said (to the best of my recollection) that it wasn't something wrong.
> 
> Your recollection is wrong.  She said a number of times prior to you making that statement that it was no big deal.
> 
> In the strictest sense of the words, "no one" would mean absolutely not a single person on the face of the earth.  In the real world, where people just talk, "no one" means "none of the people you're accusing of this are saying what you're accusing them of".
> 
> I, nor you were talking about all the people on earth.  YOU were talking about the people in this thread, where about 30% of them expressed that they did not think this was a serious crime.  That's where you went wrong.
> 
> So, if you need to be right, you are technically right.  If you want to talk like the average person does, I wasn't wrong.



I don't need to be right....I just am.  You can't even get the fact right here.


----------



## vraiblonde

tblwdc said:


> You are the person who commented on MY post.  This_person was the one who was talking about people in this thread when he said NO ONE.  You are making assumptions in your silly little head about things and when shown to be wrong, attempt to belittle people.  It's a common tactic I've seen you use before.  My skin is as thick as your scull, so your attempts at insulting me are to no avail.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> I don't need to be right....I just am.  You can't even get the fact right here.



Okay, Midnight, you win  

But, what I said was that the people to which I was referring were the ones you said were not saying it.  You said I said it was no big deal, and I didn't.  You said Psy said it was no big deal, and Psy never did.  Please provide the 30% calculation (who do you think believe it is not a big deal to vs. those who believe it is a big deal divided by the total number of posters in this thread).  TYVM


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> It would seem, based on the promise of privacy to the victims, that there actually WAS an expectation of privacy.  *One of the problems with how this has been handled is that it is now less likely a victim will come forward for fear their story will be "leaked" as well.*The family took the child to the police three years before the police report, so they handled it in the way you deemed "proper".  Or, besides counseling for all involved, punishment of the perpetrator, and police involvement at the time, what else would you have had them do?
> 
> Being "on display", as I mentioned previously, is not a reason to suggest they have no privacy.  Should their medical records be public?  Should their discussions with lawyers no longer have confidentiality?  How about private fears they discuss with family members when the cameras are not on - should their house be bugged to make sure those things are public?
> 
> Thinking that just because they're on TV they have no right to privacy is lunacy.



What did the duggars do the other 2 times they 'discovered' josh was molesting girls? Did they take him back to see that child pornographer/ state trooper who had been recoomended by a friend?


its hilarious that you are worried that people might not report this kind of crime in the future but you are fine with it not being reported in the past.

BTW, you are wrong. this was a public record. there was no expectation of privacy. That is the same for everyone. The duggars do not get a special set of laws to live by.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> Okay, Midnight, you win
> 
> But, what I said was that the people to which I was referring were the ones you said were not saying it.  You said I said it was no big deal, and I didn't.  You said Psy said it was no big deal, and Psy never did.  Please provide the 30% calculation (who do you think believe it is not a big deal to vs. those who believe it is a big deal divided by the total number of posters in this thread).  TYVM



I'm not midnight, so another fact you got wrong.


----------



## tblwdc

vraiblonde said:


> View attachment 108531



Nicely said from the lady who was wrong....so now is calling me a dick.  Well it takes a cuint oledo to know one


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> What did the duggars do the other 2 times they 'discovered' josh was molesting girls? Did they take him back to see that child pornographer/ state trooper who had been recoomended by a friend?


The cop was a child pornographer?  I hadn't heard that.  Where did you get that from?





> its hilarious that you are worried that people might not report this kind of crime in the future but you are fine with it not being reported in the past.


It WAS reported in the past.  That's what you're not getting.





> BTW, you are wrong. this was a public record. there was no expectation of privacy. That is the same for everyone. The duggars do not get a special set of laws to live by.


They were told it would not be.  They expected privacy because they were told it would be private.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> I'm not midnight, so another fact you got wrong.



But, what I said was that the people to which I was referring were the ones you said were not saying it. You said I said it was no big deal, and I didn't. You said Psy said it was no big deal, and Psy never did. Please provide the 30% calculation (who do you think believe it is not a big deal to vs. those who believe it is a big deal divided by the total number of posters in this thread). TYVM


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> But, what I said was that the people to which I was referring were the ones you said were not saying it. You said I said it was no big deal, and I didn't. You said Psy said it was no big deal, and Psy never did. Please provide the 30% calculation (who do you think believe it is not a big deal to vs. those who believe it is a big deal divided by the total number of posters in this thread). TYVM



I never said psy said it wasn't a big deal.   Never once did I say that.  Why do you lie?  Here are some of the people who did either say it wasn't a big deal, or agreed with someone else who said it wasn't a big deal.  Gurps Hjinx Bann Vri


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> The cop was a child pornographer?  I hadn't heard that.  Where did you get that from?It WAS reported in the past.  That's what you're not getting.They were told it would not be.  They expected privacy because they were told it would be private.



its a public record :shrug:

its the same for everybody. If they hadn't made themselves public figures no one would know who they are right now, even if the documkent came out because the names were redacted. the only reason anyone can figure out who is being talked about in the police report is because the duggars put their life out there on that show.





> Hutchens, 69, was convicted and sentenced in 2007 on child pornography charges, but released on parole in 2010.
> 
> Soon after his release he was arrested again Radar Online reports and charged with  four counts of distribution, possession or viewing of sexually explicit material involving a child.
> 
> He is currently serving a 60 year sentence though he will be eligible for parole in November 2020
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-child-pornography-charges.html#ixzz3caMBQTsH
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




you really ought to read up on this case........


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> Why do you lie?  Here are some of the people who did either say it wasn't a big deal, or agreed with someone else who said it wasn't a big deal.  Gurps Hjinx Bann Vri


So, 4 people, in your opinion, say it is not a big deal.

Let me re-phrase:  "_Virtually_ no one says this is not a big deal...."


Better?



Not that those people are "no ones", but that is a pretty small number.  And, again, I was addressing midnight's assertion that the majority of people were not considering it a big deal.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> its a public record :shrug:
> 
> its the same for everybody. If they hadn't made themselves public figures no one would know who they are right now, even if the documkent came out because the names were redacted. the only reason anyone can figure out who is being talked about in the police report is because the duggars put their life out there on that show.


No, the reason people can figure it out is that a report that was promised to the victims to remain private was not kept private.  A lot of things about them remain private, just like every other famous person, but this was not kept in confidence as promised to the victims.  That some sleazebag company chose to take what should, to any reasonable person, be private information and made it public is why we know if it.  It's very much like those starlets who took nude photos and then someone hacked their private accounts to make those pictures public.  No one would know about them if they weren't starlets, and the hack was a known fault in the system, so it's really their own faults, right?  NOT





> you really ought to read up on this case........


I was unaware of this, that is true.  I don't see how it negates the fact that the Duggars went to the police three years before the police report was made, but you don't really worry about the core issues, you like to obfuscate the real issues with side ones like these.  It fits your MO.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> No, the reason people can figure it out is that a report that was promised to the victims to remain private was not kept private.  A lot of things about them remain private, just like every other famous person, but this was not kept in confidence as promised to the victims.  That some sleazebag company chose to take what should, to any reasonable person, be private information and made it public is why we know if it.  It's very much like those starlets who took nude photos and then someone hacked their private accounts to make those pictures public.  No one would know about them if they weren't starlets, and the hack was a known fault in the system, so it's really their own faults, right?NOT


you want to show where they were promised this document would not be a public record? or maybe show how that promise was conveyed?
THe sleazebag was Josh. His record as a sleazebag is public since the record was made after he turned 18. Thats the way it works for everyone.
If they were not on that TV show no one whould have ever known who they were even if this document was released. All of their names and pronouns were redacted, including Josh's. No one hacked anything, no one stole anything, this was a public record.


> was unaware of this, that is true.  I don't see how it negates the fact that the Duggars went to the police three years before the police report was made, but you don't really worry about the core issues, you like to obfuscate the real issues with side ones like these.  It fits your MO.


The duggars hand chose that cop based on the reccomendation of a friend. That cop didn't do anything about it and later turned out to be a child porn lover. Yeah, i'd say that factors in. I would also say that it is mighty suspicious that they just happened to choose a perv to "confess to" and that they didn't take Josh back to the police after his second and third 'confession".


----------



## GURPS

Swing and a Pop Fly into the Stands ........ It's a Home Run 


over 300 posts


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> ridiculous as usual....
> please quote where i have done anything like that.



Fish in a barrel.   This is just getting more entertaining for me.

Once again, doing YOUR homework, and now with your own words; that you seem to have no memory writing.  You should get that fixed:



Midnightrider said:


> It sounds like Duggar was a serial sexual offender, his family knew, and try all covered it up.





Midnightrider said:


> This guy should be on the sex offenders list. Probably the only reason he isn't is because he and his family covered it up for long enough.
> 
> Rapists and molesters should be prosecuted and ostracized, period.





Midnightrider said:


> This was not two kids petting, it was a teenage boy who molested his younger sisters. To me that's just as bad as what those old priests were accused of.



Of course you're going to deny that this is what you're saying; but I think most of us are pretty clear about your view of the Duggars. 

We get that think this was a serious crime.  We get that you would had your child (if you had one; which it's obvious you don't) you'd have your own child thrown in prison and put your own son on (in your own words) "a sex offenders list".  We get that you would have your own 14 year old son "prosecuted and ostracized".  

See, most of us who are REALLY parents have a more rational way dealing with family problems; and that is to discipline, counsel, punish, and (when necessary, get our children help.  You're the type that feels you have some right to inject yourself into the business of other peoples' families.  You think you have some sort of ownership over peoples' lives.  Most of us just want to get through our family issues, and YES, cover up our dirty laundry because, quite frankly.............. IT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.  The Duggars dealt with it in their own way.  How they dealt with it worked for them.  The kids went on with NORMAL lives with their own families and don't need people like you coming along and trying to dictate to them how they should deal with their own problems.

You try to portray yourself as some conservative libertarian, when it's blatantly clear that you're nothing but a progressive, get-government-involved-in-everything, activist, busybody.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> you want to show where they were promised this document would not be a public record? or maybe show how that promise was conveyed?
> THe sleazebag was Josh. His record as a sleazebag is public since the record was made after he turned 18. Thats the way it works for everyone.
> If they were not on that TV show no one whould have ever known who they were even if this document was released. All of their names and pronouns were redacted, including Josh's. No one hacked anything, no one stole anything, this was a public record.


Releasing the information is horrific sleazebag stuff.  Whether the family is known to twenty million people because they are on TV or twenty people because everybody knows somebody, it was private, intimate information that benefits no one to be released but unquestionably harms at least the victims.  Whether it was legal to release and publish (which is highly suspect) or not, it was sleazy to do.





> The duggars hand chose that cop based on the reccomendation of a friend. That cop didn't do anything about it and later turned out to be a child porn lover. Yeah, i'd say that factors in. I would also say that it is mighty suspicious that they just happened to choose a perv to "confess to" and that they didn't take Josh back to the police after his second and third 'confession".


How does it factor in that a police officer who was not charged at that point and was recommended to the family was who they went to?  How does that change that you believe they should have gone to the police and they did?


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> Fish in a barrel.   This is just getting more entertaining for me.
> 
> Once again, doing YOUR homework, and now with your own words; that you seem to have no memory writing.  You should get that fixed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you're going to deny that this is what you're saying; but I think most of us are pretty clear about your view of the Duggars.
> 
> We get that think this was a serious crime.  We get that you would had your child (if you had one; which it's obvious you don't) you'd have your own child thrown in prison and put your own son on (in your own words) "a sex offenders list".  We get that you would have your own 14 year old son "prosecuted and ostracized".
> 
> See, most of us who are REALLY parents have a more rational way dealing with family problems; and that is to discipline, counsel, punish, and (when necessary, get our children help.  You're the type that feels you have some right to inject yourself into the business of other peoples' families.  You think you have some sort of ownership over peoples' lives.  Most of us just want to get through our family issues, and YES, cover up our dirty laundry because, quite frankly.............. IT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.  The Duggars dealt with it in their own way.  How they dealt with it worked for them.  The kids went on with NORMAL lives with their own families and don't need people like you coming along and trying to dictate to them how they should deal with their own problems.
> 
> You try to portray yourself as some conservative libertarian, when it's blatantly clear that you're nothing but a progressive, get-government-involved-in-everything, activist, busybody.




Words have meaning.
In none of those posts did I do this:


> ....portray this family as a bunch of out-of-control sexual predators



Its funny watching you be so wrong. What you think you know is pretty far from reality.

As for the little sex offender you think you should be able to raise, You are damn right its my business. If you want to take risks in your own family fine. When that risk is visited on the community the community has a right to know. In this case the parents didn't and a girl from outside the family was molested. You are damn right I have a right to know if your little (imaginary) molester is a risk to my kids.

You try to portray yourself as a conservative, but its clear you think laws don't apply to you and yours and that taking responsibility for one's actions is a foreign concept to you.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Words have meaning.
> In none of those posts did I do this:
> 
> 
> Its funny watching you be so wrong. What you think you know is pretty far from reality.
> 
> As for the little sex offender you think you should be able to raise, You are damn right its my business. If you want to take risks in your own family fine. When that risk is visited on the community the community has a right to know. In this case the parents didn't and a girl from outside the family was molested. You are damn right I have a right to know if your little (imaginary) molester is a risk to my kids.
> 
> You try to portray yourself as a conservative, but its clear you think laws don't apply to you and yours and that taking responsibility for one's actions is a foreign concept to you.


Let me guess, his arguments are straw man arguments and you're getting bored with this, amiright?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Let me guess, his arguments are straw man arguments and you're getting bored with this, amiright?



Why don't you try reading what I write for a change


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Words have meaning.
> In none of those posts did I do this:
> 
> 
> Its funny watching you be so wrong. What you think you know is pretty far from reality.
> 
> As for the little sex offender you think you should be able to raise, You are damn right its my business. If you want to take risks in your own family fine. When that risk is visited on the community the community has a right to know. In this case the parents didn't and a girl from outside the family was molested. You are damn right I have a right to know if your little (imaginary) molester is a risk to my kids.
> 
> You try to portray yourself as a conservative, but its clear you think laws don't apply to you and yours and that taking responsibility for one's actions is a foreign concept to you.



Oh I know… everyone is wrong even when everyone is telling you you’re wrong.  Someone help me... there is a psychological term for this.  

I think you’ve made your point clear.  Let us know when you have a 14 year and he does something really stupid.  I want to go visit him in jail hear what he has to say about DADDY putting him there because he got curious about girls and went a little too far.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> Oh I know… everyone is wrong even when everyone is telling you you’re wrong.  Someone help me... there is a psychological term for this.
> 
> I think you’ve made your point clear.  Let us know when you have a 14 year and he does something really stupid.  I want to go visit him in jail hear what he has to say about DADDY putting him there because he got curious about girls and went a little too far.



Everyone huh? By my count most have no opinion or are staying out of it and there are 4 or 5 on each side. But you can count that as 'everyone' if you want 

You have made your point clear too. You would hide your son's criminal activity even when he repeats it numerous times and violates 5 different grls and you would teach him to not take personal responsibility for his actions.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> You're makingthe same mistake MR made.  No one is suggesting it is not a serious crime.  Everyone is suggesting that the perpetrator should be both properly disciplined and given psychological help, as should the victims as needed.   But let's be realistic,  it is not rape. The charge of fondling is the word on the report, not someone here.



I read your posts on the matter and you are such a liar!  YOU said this was just playing doctor.(Post 126)  YOU said this was a "kid feeling up another kid".(Posts 167 and 175) Are you that afraid of being wrong that you have to lie abou things?


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Everyone huh? By my count most have no opinion or are staying out of it and there are 4 or 5 on each side. But you can count that as 'everyone' if you want
> 
> You have made your point clear too. You would hide your son's criminal activity even when he repeats it numerous times and violates 5 different grls and you would teach him to not take personal responsibility for his actions.



Yes, I would hide my 14 year old son's 'criminal' activity because it's none of your damn business.  You're a damn busybody thinking you're entitled to know what a family's 14 year old kid is doing.  What happens in my house is my own business and how I deal with it is none of your business.  What you fail to realize is how the Duggars dealt with Josh worked for them.  They got Josh the help he needed and it worked.  You'd have your kid in prison and deemed a pedophile for life.  That just freaks me out that you'd be that kind of parent.  I hope the hell you never have kids, because you're in for a rude awakening.  But even this is a waste of time because you think you have it all figured out.

Now you go on and have the last word (because I know you just can't stand to have someone else have the last word), because I'm done with your ignorance and nonsense.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> Yes, I would hide my 14 year old son's 'criminal' activity because it's none of your damn business.  You're a damn busybody thinking you're entitled to know what a family's 14 year old kid is doing.  What happens in my house is my own business and how I deal with it is none of your business.  What you fail to realize is how the Duggars dealt with Josh worked for them.  They got Josh the help he needed and it worked.  *You'd have your kid in prison and deemed a pedophile for life. * That just freaks me out that you'd be that kind of parent.  I hope the hell you never have kids, because you're in for a rude awakening.  But even this is a waste of time because you think you have it all figured out.
> 
> Now you go on and have the last word (because I know you just can't stand to have someone else have the last word), because I'm done with your ignorance and nonsense.



Maybe you can show where I ever said that. Oh, that's right you cant.


Already raised one and raising the other. My boy was raised to stand up and take responsibility for his actions. If you had bothered to read anything I wrote you would know my kids have and are being raised to respect the law and take responsibility when they do wrong.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> you want to show where they were promised this document would not be a public record? or maybe show how that promise was conveyed?
> THe sleazebag was Josh. His record as a sleazebag is public since the record was made after he turned 18. Thats the way it works for everyone.
> If they were not on that TV show no one whould have ever known who they were even if this document was released. All of their names and pronouns were redacted, including Josh's. No one hacked anything, no one stole anything, this was a public record.


Releasing the information is horrific sleazebag stuff.  Whether the family is known to twenty million people because they are on TV or twenty people because everybody knows somebody, it was private, intimate information that benefits no one to be released but unquestionably harms at least the victims.  Whether it was legal to release and publish (which is highly suspect) or not, it was sleazy to do.





> The duggars hand chose that cop based on the reccomendation of a friend. That cop didn't do anything about it and later turned out to be a child porn lover. Yeah, i'd say that factors in. I would also say that it is mighty suspicious that they just happened to choose a perv to "confess to" and that they didn't take Josh back to the police after his second and third 'confession".


How does it factor in that a police officer who was not charged at that point and was recommended to the family was who they went to?  How does that change that you believe they should have gone to the police and they did?


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> I read your posts on the matter and you are such a liar!  YOU said this was just playing doctor.(Post 126)  YOU said this was a "kid feeling up another kid".(Posts 167 and 175) Are you that afraid of being wrong that you have to lie abou things?



It was a kid feeling up other kids.  It went no further than playing doctor.  And it was non-consensual which makes it a serious deal.  I've said all of this.

This wasn't rape.  This was barely the technical definition of assault.  But, it was non-consensual which makes it a serious deal.

This is the same thing that I have said before.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> It was a kid feeling up other kids.  It went no further than playing doctor.  And it was non-consensual which makes it a serious deal.  I've said all of this.
> 
> This wasn't rape.  This was barely the technical definition of assault.  But, it was non-consensual which makes it a serious deal.
> 
> This is the same thing that I have said before.



It was molestation plain and simple and he had a pattern of doing it to 5 different girls an unknown number of times. That is not playing doctor.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Already raised one and raising the other. My boy was raised to stand up and take responsibility for his actions. If you had bothered to read anything I wrote you would know my kids have and are being raised to respect the law and take responsibility when they do wrong.


So, do you believe it is in the best interest of your child to be labeled by the government as a sex offender or to simply get counseling and parental-determined punishment?


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> It was a kid feeling up other kids.  It went no further than playing doctor.  And it was non-consensual which makes it a serious deal.  I've said all of this.
> 
> This wasn't rape.  This was barely the technical definition of assault.  But, it was non-consensual which makes it a serious deal.
> 
> This is the same thing that I have said before.



You didn't say any of that prior to the 22nd page of this thread where you were called out.  Epic fail!


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> It was a kid feeling up other kids.  It went no further than playing doctor.  And it was non-consensual which makes it a serious deal.  I've said all of this.
> 
> This wasn't rape.  This was barely the technical definition of assault.  But, it was non-consensual which makes it a serious deal.
> 
> This is the same thing that I have said before.



It was exactly the definition of a sexual assault! 

You are so full of it.  You minimize this by calling it playing doctor and when called on that you then say you meant it was a serious crime.  You lack integrity.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> So, do you believe it is in the best interest of your child to be labeled by the government as a sex offender or to simply get counseling and parental-determined punishment?



Do you think it was in the best intrest of duggar to allow his son to molest the girls after his first admission?


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> You didn't say any of that prior to the 22nd page of this thread where you were called out.  Epic fail!



I said it was rape?  I don't think so.

I characterized it as feeling someone up, which it was.  I characterized it as playing doctor, which what purportedly happened was milder than playing doctor when I was a kid.

I didn't post until #77, which was a smartass comment to Psy and not on topic.  I didn't post again until #116, where I corrected the mischaracterization of Josh as a pedophile.  My third post, #126, I said that it was playing doctor, but non-consensual.  In my fifth post, #136 on the 14th page, I said that it was sexual assault and a sickness.

You can mischaracterize and misrepresent all that you will, but you still won't be right.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> It was exactly the definition of a sexual assault!
> 
> You are so full of it.  You minimize this by calling it playing doctor and when called on that you then say you meant it was a serious crime.  You lack integrity.



It was serious.  It was a crime.  It was weaker than playing doctor, but it was non-consensual.  Said that all along.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> Do you think it was in the best intrest of duggar to allow his son to molest the girls after his first admission?



If MR ever directly answers my question (which he's already proven he won't) I will respond to your question by asking what you mean by "allow".  Do you mean the father should have killed his son so it could never happen again, or what?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I said it was rape?  I don't think so.
> 
> I characterized it as feeling someone up, which it was*.  I characterized it as playing doctor, which what purportedly happened was milder than playing doctor when I was a kid.*
> I didn't post until #77, which was a smartass comment to Psy and not on topic.  I didn't post again until #116, where I corrected the mischaracterization of Josh as a pedophile.  My third post, #126, I said that it was playing doctor, but non-consensual.  In my fifth post, #136 on the 14th page, I said that it was sexual assault and a sickness.
> 
> You can mischaracterize and misrepresent all that you will, but you still won't be right.



How many kids did you molest while they slept? Is that how you play doctor?



This_person said:


> It was serious.  It was a crime.  It was weaker than playing doctor, but it was non-consensual.  Said that all along.



It was molestation, not weaker than playing doctor. 



This_person said:


> If MR ever directly answers my question (which he's already proven he won't) I will respond to your question by asking what you mean by "allow".  Do you mean the father should have killed his son so it could never happen again, or what?



I answered your questions pages ago and it doesn't have anything to do with your conversation with him anyway.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> How many kids did you molest while they slept? Is that how you play doctor?


The fact that they were asleep I mentioned from the first time I described the touching as playing doctor.  I actually differentiated it from just playing doctor by talking about them being asleep. 





> I answered your questions pages ago and it doesn't have anything to do with your conversation with him anyway.



Refresh my memory, which of those two did you say your son would be better off with?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> The fact that they were asleep I mentioned from the first time I described the touching as playing doctor.  I actually differentiated it from just playing doctor by talking about them being asleep.
> 
> Refresh my memory, which of those two did you say your son would be better off with?



Molestation is not playing doctor. Calling it that is just as disingenuous as calling it rape would be. He wasn't playing doctor, he was sexually assaulting those girls.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Molestation is not playing doctor. Calling it that is just as disingenuous as calling it rape would be. He wasn't playing doctor, he was sexually assaulting those girls.


Technically, patting someone on the rump is sexual assault, and thus molestation.  If a gay man patted you on your rump would you charge him with sexual assault?

Refresh my memory, which of those two did you say your son would be better off with?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Technically, patting someone on the rump is sexual assault, and thus molestation.  If a gay man patted you on your rump would you charge him with sexual assault?
> 
> Refresh my memory, which of those two did you say your son would be better off with?



Lets stick to this case. You know, the one where the guy molested 5 girls. This wasn't a technicality. 5 girls were violated.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Lets stick to this case. You know, the one where the guy molested 5 girls. This wasn't a technicality. 5 girls were violated.


Refresh my memory, which of those two did you say your son would be better off with?


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Lets stick to this case. You know, the one where the guy molested 5 girls. This wasn't a technicality. 5 girls were violated.



I understand your desire to stick with the specifics of this case because if you had to think it would be detrimental to your position.


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> Maybe you can show where I ever said that. Oh, that's right you cant.
> 
> 
> Already raised one and raising the other. My boy was raised to stand up and take responsibility for his actions. If you had bothered to read anything I wrote you would know my kids have and are being raised to respect the law and take responsibility when they do wrong.



Given you would throw your own child to the law:



Midnightrider said:


> I would take him to the police if the situation was the same.



It’s logical to conclude you would view your own child as a predator, a rapist, a criminal; and have him put on a sex offenders list and ostracized:



Midnightrider said:


> What I care about is a guy being a sexual predator. Anyone who tries to excuse or defend his touching girls who did not want to be touched is crappy. This guy should be on the sex offenders list. Probably the only reason he isn't is because he and his family covered it up for long enough.
> 
> Rapists and molesters should be prosecuted and ostracized, period.



You do realize ostracizing someone is for life?

Given you have an established track record of making up your own facts, I’m having a hard time believing you have kids.  But even if you do, you’re a rare breed so willing to turn your 14 year old child into the police, classify him as a rapist, predator, and criminal, put him on a sex offenders list, and ostracized… over some fondling.  That’s some exceptionally unusual parenting.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> Given you would throw your own child to the law:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s logical to conclude you would view your own child as a predator, a rapist, a criminal; and have him put on a sex offenders list and ostracized:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize ostracizing someone is for life?


actually in this case it would have only been until he reached the age of majority unless he con tinued to commit sexual assaults.



> Given you have an established track record of *making up your own facts*, I’m having a hard time believing you have kids.  But even if you do, you’re a rare breed so willing to turn your 14 year old child into the police, *classify him as a rapist, predator, and criminal, put him on a sex offenders list, and ostracized… over some fondling. * That’s some exceptionally unusual parenting.



you can keep down playing this as "some fondling" but the facts are that he molested 5 girls and 'confessed to his parents no less than 3 disparate times. I'd say its the unusual parenting to no take your little molester to the police to face the music. 
Its called personal responsiblity.

and you want to talk about making up facts......


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> actually in this case it would have only been until he reached the age of majority unless he con tinued to commit sexual assaults.


Refresh my memory, which of those two did you say your son would be better off with?  Oh, I see you think having your son labeled by the government as a sexual offender for probably only four years is better for the child than just parental discipline and counseling.  

You just would parent different, and you own that.  Bully for you.





> you can keep down playing this as "some fondling" but the facts are that he molested 5 girls and 'confessed to his parents no less than 3 disparate times. I'd say its the unusual parenting to no take your little molester to the police to face the music.
> Its called personal responsiblity.
> 
> and you want to talk about making up facts......


Um, if they took the boy to a cop after he admitted to the fondling (which is a sexual assault), what are you disagreeing with?  They did what you suggest they should have done.  When he was still a minor.  You know that, but keep saying that they should have done it.  Why do you imply that they didn't do what they did?


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> I characterized it as feeling someone up, which it was.  I characterized it as playing doctor, which what purportedly happened was milder than playing doctor when I was a kid.
> .



I hope this is my last question on this thread. I'm just curious since you are equating his actions with things that you did when you were his age......... How many five-year-olds did you play doctor with?


----------



## PsyOps

Midnightrider said:


> actually in this case it would have only been until he reached the age of majority unless he con tinued to commit sexual assaults.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> I hope this is my last question on this thread. I'm just curious since you are equating his actions with things that you did when you were his age......... How many five-year-olds did you play doctor with?



I hope it is your last question too, because it is either exceptionally stupid or intentionally exceptionally offensive.  Either way it doesn't rise to a level of civil discourse that warrants an answer.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Refresh my memory, which of those two did you say your son would be better off with?  Oh, I see you think having your son labeled by the government as a sexual offender for probably only four years is better for the child than just parental discipline and counseling.
> 
> You just would parent different, and you own that.  Bully for you.Um, if they took the boy to a cop after he admitted to the fondling (which is a sexual assault), what are you disagreeing with?  They did what you suggest they should have done.  When he was still a minor.  You know that, but keep saying that they should have done it.  Why do you imply that they didn't do what they did?


go back and read the thread. 

How about the second and third time josh "confessed"?


tblwdc said:


> I hope this is my last question on this thread. I'm just curious since you are equating his actions with things that you did when you were his age......... How many five-year-olds did you play doctor with?





and how many of those did you play with when you were 14?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I hope it is your last question too, because it is either exceptionally stupid or intentionally exceptionally offensive.  Either way it doesn't rise to a level of civil discourse that warrants an answer.



you are the one claiming that what josh did was 'weaker' than what you did when you played doctor.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> I hope it is your last question too, because it is either exceptionally stupid or intentionally exceptionally offensive.  Either way it doesn't rise to a level of civil discourse that warrants an answer.


I will end the mystery for you. It was intentionally offensive!


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> I hope it is your last question too, because it is either exceptionally stupid or intentionally exceptionally offensive.  Either way it doesn't rise to a level of civil discourse that warrants an answer.



You know you are correct. I'm sorry that was too offensive. Let me rethink the question.  How many of your sisters did you play doctor with?

After all you said the thing that makes this serious is that he did it while they were sleeping. So I obviously you think it's okay that he did with your sisters!


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> go back and read the thread.


 I read it.  You said repeatedly that you would take your child to the police because that is what you deem to be both proper demonstration of parental responsibility and would teach your child to take responsibility for his actions.  Now, you've also acknowledged that doing so would likely result in your child being labeled by the government as a sex offender for at least four years.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would only do things to your child that you believe are in his best interest.  These are the things that you have defended as the appropriate actions and what you would do.

Is it now your contention that you would not do these things, or that I am wrong in giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would do what you believe is in the best interest of your child?  Or, does it just sound ####ty when you realize what you are saying?

This has been your repeated position.  You own it.  There's nothing wrong with being the kind of parent you choose to be, even if that differs from my way of parenting. 





> How about the second and third time josh "confessed"?


They saw the police officer after the counseling and discipline, in 2003.





> and how many of those did you play with when you were 14?


See my previous response.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> You know you are correct. I'm sorry that was too offensive. Let me rethink the question.  How many of your sisters did you play doctor with?
> 
> After all you said the thing that makes this serious is that he did it while they were sleeping. So I obviously you think it's okay that he did with your sisters!



I also said that it was sexual assault (that's actually the very first characterization of it I made).  I said that it is a sickness (in the same sentence that I called it assault).

You are now knowingly asking me (since you said that you read all of my posts and that was the very first thing I said about this) if I sexually assaulted my sisters, and have a sickness.  And you think I will believe that you are raising your level of discourse.

Good day.


----------



## MMDad

This_person said:


> There's nothing wrong with being the kind of parent you choose to be, even if that differs from my way of parenting.



So you wouldn't involve the police if you knew that your kid broke the law. Would you cover for him if he robbed someone? How about murder? Drugs? Or do you only help him hide his crimes when it's against family members?

You may think that you are on some kind of moral high road, but you are nothing more than an enabler. Preventing your kid from facing the consequences of his illegal actions is not good parenting.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> I also said that it was sexual assault (that's actually the very first characterization of it I made).  I said that it is a sickness (in the same sentence that I called it assault).
> 
> You are now knowingly asking me (since you said that you read all of my posts and that was the very first thing I said about this) if I sexually assaulted my sisters, and have a sickness.  And you think I will believe that you are raising your level of discourse.
> 
> Good day.



Lol..... You also said apart from the girls being asleep this is less than you've done in your life. So it's obviously similar but not as bad as what you did to your sisters. Are you sure you're not from West Virginia rather than southern Maryland?

Don't be angry with me. These are your words not mine!


----------



## PsyOps

tblwdc said:


> I hope this is my last question on this thread. I'm just curious since you are equating his actions with things that you did when you were his age......... How many five-year-olds did you play doctor with?



I think we need to be clear here… AGAIN… no one is condoning what Josh did.  I think it’s safe to say Josh fondled the 4 oldest girls.  If he did fondle the youngest  of those (Jinger) at 5, Josh would have been 11.  What some of us are saying is, you cannot hold an 11, 12, 13, 14 year old to the same standard as an adult.  I’m certain Josh knew what he was doing was wrong; otherwise he wouldn’t have tried to do this while they were sleeping.  If it were me as a parent, I would be shocked, angry, sad, confused…  But the last think I could ever do in this sort of situation is haul my child off to the cops and have him booked on molestation charges.  There are some things that most definitely require getting the law involved regarding your child.  In my opinion this is not one of them.  It’s a serious problem that loving parents would address with counseling and certain types of discipline, as well as modifying how you monitor your kids.

I think one of the biggest mistakes we make today is our kneejerk reaction to call the cops on our children when they get out of control.  In my day, when we got in fights in school, we were sent home to our parents and they took whatever appropriate action they felt necessary to get their child in line.   And I can tell you, when I screwed up, my parents let me have it.

Today, when a kid gets out of line, the school calls the cops, they come in and they cuff him, and in some cases take him to a detention center.  CHILDREN, hauled off to jail because they got out of line in school; as if they understood one bit of what they were doing.  We live in a different time today where parents seem comfortable with shedding their parenting responsibilities off of them and placing them on someone else.  It’s unfathomable for me to have my child arrested for something I can deal with.  People that would call the cops on their own child in a situation like this just don’t want to deal with their responsibility to take care of their kids.


----------



## PsyOps

This_person said:


> I read it.  You said repeatedly that you would take your child to the police.



And let’s not forget ‘ostracize’, he would shun his own child.  I’m wondering what this looks like.  Cop hauls his son off, charges him with child molestation.  They send him home and daddy tells the family… “Jr. is hereby ostracized.  No one is to go near him.  No one is to talk to him or respond to anything he says or asks.  I have already spoken to the community and demand they give no regard to Jr.  He will be shunned from every event.  No one will play with him.  Everyone will reject his very presence.”


----------



## tblwdc

PsyOps said:


> I think we need to be clear here… AGAIN… no one is condoning what Josh did.



I think there are people on here who are, in essence, saying this is nothing more than a boy being a boy.  I might tend to agree with them if it were one person on one instance.  Correct me if I am wrong, because I admittedly have not read as much as some others on here about this.  Wasn't there a victim who wasn't part of the family?

I would agree with you that people call the police too often when things should be handled by the parents.  I disagree with you at handling this situation at all costs and never involving the police, if in fact that is your view.  

I don't think these things are cookie cutter and there is one answer that fits into each situation.  I think they have to be looked at on a case by case.  In this instance, if my understanding of events is correct, this happened multiple times.  (Three that the parents know of).  That to me is beyond the parents ability to protect their other children.  

In sofar as the school calling the cops on the kids, well that's what we have done to our kids.  We don't let the schools discipline our kids and question every decision a school makes.  So we have taken the authority away from teachers and when a kid gets unruly, they call the authorities.  

People like MR and This_person will argue something to the emth degree and will change their story or lie about things they said.  I take issue with that and enjoy calling them out on things.  Other than that, your opinion and my opinion about this situation isn't that far off other than I would have contacted someone who does have more knowledge than I after these repeated incidents and I think the fact that what he did is more than a boy being a boy.


----------



## Bann

Isn't this tread dead, yet?


----------



## PsyOps

tblwdc said:


> Other than that, your opinion and my opinion about this situation isn't that far off other than I would have contacted someone who does have more knowledge than I after these repeated incidents and I think the fact that what he did is more than a boy being a boy.





And that’s where I’m at on this.  I am not trying to downplay the severity of what Josh did.  Parents catch their kids doing a plethora of illegal things and never think about calling the cops on the: under-aged drinking,  smoking, smoking pot, getting in fights…  We live in a different mindset today in how we deal with our kids.  One time incident of fondling, you have a stern talking with him.  Multiple incidents, you get him help.


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> I think we need to be clear here… AGAIN… no one is condoning what Josh did.  I think it’s safe to say Josh fondled the 4 oldest girls.  If he did fondle the youngest  of those (Jinger) at 5, Josh would have been 11.  What some of us are saying is, you cannot hold an 11, 12, 13, 14 year old to the same standard as an adult.  I’m certain Josh knew what he was doing was wrong; otherwise he wouldn’t have tried to do this while they were sleeping.  If it were me as a parent, I would be shocked, angry, sad, confused…  But the last think I could ever do in this sort of situation is haul my child off to the cops and have him booked on molestation charges.  There are some things that most definitely require getting the law involved regarding your child.  In my opinion this is not one of them.  It’s a serious problem that loving parents would address with counseling and certain types of discipline, as well as modifying how you monitor your kids.
> 
> I think one of the biggest mistakes we make today is our kneejerk reaction to call the cops on our children when they get out of control.  In my day, when we got in fights in school, we were sent home to our parents and they took whatever appropriate action they felt necessary to get their child in line.   And I can tell you, when I screwed up, my parents let me have it.
> 
> Today, when a kid gets out of line, the school calls the cops, they come in and they cuff him, and in some cases take him to a detention center.  CHILDREN, hauled off to jail because they got out of line in school; as if they understood one bit of what they were doing.  We live in a different time today where parents seem comfortable with shedding their parenting responsibilities off of them and placing them on someone else.  It’s unfathomable for me to have my child arrested for something I can deal with.  *People that would call the cops on their own child in a situation like this just don’t want to deal with their responsibility to take care of their kids*.


this is just completely ridiculous. Having your kid face up to the consequences of repeatedly breaking the law in no way means that a parent will not discipline their kid or get them other help. in fact, it indicates that they are willing to make the hard decisions to help their kid learn and grow.

If you help your kid hide their misdoings, thats all you are teaching them to do.


PsyOps said:


> And let’s not forget ‘ostracize’, he would shun his own child.  I’m wondering what this looks like.  Cop hauls his son off, charges him with child molestation.  They send him home and daddy tells the family… “Jr. is hereby ostracized.  No one is to go near him.  No one is to talk to him or respond to anything he says or asks.  I have already spoken to the community and demand they give no regard to Jr.  He will be shunned from every event.  No one will play with him.  Everyone will reject his very presence.”


what it looks like is "josh isn't allowed to be alone with any girls". period, the end.

i guess you feel all sex offenders are 'wronged' by the system or just Josh Duggar?



PsyOps said:


> And that’s where I’m at on this.  I am not trying to downplay the severity of what Josh did.  Parents catch their kids doing a plethora of illegal things and never think about calling the cops on the: under-aged drinking,  smoking, smoking pot, getting in fights…  We live in a different mindset today in how we deal with our kids.  One time incident of fondling, you have a stern talking with him.  *Multiple incidents, you get him help*.



but no matter how many times he touches your daughters or other girls, you dont take it to the police. 
Like i said early on, i might give my kid one pass on something this serious, but by the third 'confession' part of his punishment is going to be accepting the legal consequeces.
as MMdad said, anything else and you are simply enabling him


----------



## This_person

MMDad said:


> So you wouldn't involve the police if you knew that your kid broke the law. Would you cover for him if he robbed someone? How about murder? Drugs? Or do you only help him hide his crimes when it's against family members?
> 
> You may think that you are on some kind of moral high road, but you are nothing more than an enabler. Preventing your kid from facing the consequences of his illegal actions is not good parenting.



You assume much.

Depending on the severity of the crime and victim and my child's role, etc., it may be the right thing.  In this case it was not.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> You assume much.
> 
> Depending on the severity of the crime and victim and my child's role, etc., it may be the right thing.  In this case it was not.



This was a sexual assault, the victims were little girls, one of them from outside the family, and josh's 'role' was that of molester. What else would you need? :shrug:


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> This was a sexual assault, the victims were little girls, one of them from outside the family, and josh's 'role' was that of molester. What else would you need? :shrug:



You realize that it is perfectly fine if we simply disagree, right?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> You realize that it is perfectly fine if we simply disagree, right?



You indicated you had some criteria. What else would you need?


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> You indicated you had some criteria. What else would you need?



I don't have a checklist or procedure for you, bud.  Sorry.  It's kind of a case by case deal.


----------



## MMDad

This_person said:


> You assume much.
> 
> Depending on the severity of the crime and victim and my child's role, etc., it may be the right thing.  In this case it was not.



So you are saying that the parents, who know what happened first hand, were wrong to go to the cops. Interesting how you can make that call based on reading some news stories.

By the way, if repeated molestation is not severe in your book what is? Does there have to be a dead body?


----------



## Midnightrider

MMDad said:


> *So you are saying that the parents, who know what happened first hand, were wrong to go to the cops*. Interesting how you can make that call based on reading some news stories.
> 
> By the way, if repeated molestation is not severe in your book what is? Does there have to be a dead body?



This ought to be good


----------



## vraiblonde

Still going....


----------



## littlelady

Bann said:


> Isn't this tread dead, yet?


----------



## This_person

MMDad said:


> So you are saying that the parents, who know what happened first hand, were wrong to go to the cops. Interesting how you can make that call based on reading some news stories.


I'm happy to have interested you.  Please let MR know that the parents went to the police - he repeatedly says they should and then when told they did says they didn't early enough, and then when told they went when he thought they should of he ignores the issue until enough time has passed and then says they didn't go to the cops again.





> By the way, if repeated molestation is not severe in your book what is? Does there have to be a dead body?


No, the body must be mutilated, repeatedly raped, and burned.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I'm happy to have interested you.  Please let MR know that the parents went to the police - he repeatedly says they should and then when told they did says they didn't early enough, and then when told they went when he thought they should of he ignores the issue until enough time has passed and then says they didn't go to the cops again.No, the body must be mutilated, repeatedly raped, and burned.


Nice dodge and deflection


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Nice dodge and deflection


Golly, , thanks.  After being party to accusing me of sexual assault, incest, and being mentally ill, your opinion of me matters SOOOO much.


----------



## MMDad

vraiblonde said:


> Still going....



More hits!  Better than a MKK attention grab.


----------



## stgislander

vraiblonde said:


> Still going....



I think you need to send the main players a certificate or something thanking them.


----------



## This_person

stgislander said:


> I think you need to send the main players a certificate or something thanking them.



My goal is 500 posts, or gouging my eyes out at a few people's stupidity, whichever comes first.


----------



## stgislander

This_person said:


> My goal is 500 posts, or gouging my eyes out at a few people's stupidity, whichever comes first.



Assuming that MR is your main competition, do you think you have another 250 posts in you?


----------



## MMDad

This_person said:


> My goal is 500 posts, or gouging my eyes out at a few people's stupidity, whichever comes first.



Amazing how you don't consider yourself as the stupid one. Absolutely amazing. Or maybe not.


----------



## MMDad

stgislander said:


> Assuming that MR is your main competition, do you think you have another 250 posts in you?



If I  him a few times he can hit that today. He's easy to provoke, and so damn predictable.


----------



## This_person

stgislander said:


> Assuming that MR is your main competition, do you think you have another 250 posts in you?



MR is not competition, but one of the main people I find stupid in this.  However, that is his right, and I don't challenge that.  I won't go 500 posts though, that was just rhetorical.  They have their opinions, I have mine, and we've each said the same things so many times it seems silly to continue.  I really don't understand why they can't just accept that we have differing opinions.  Is as if someone with a differing opinion somehow offends their sensibilities.  Perhaps that is a weakness in their convictions, or perhaps it is a personality flaw that they have to control other people's thoughts, or perhaps like an addict they need people to be what they are so they don't feel bad about themselves.  I'm not sure.  But, it is confusing.


----------



## This_person

MMDad said:


> Amazing how you don't consider yourself as the stupid one. Absolutely amazing. Or maybe not.



You're amazed at it, I'm not.  What a shocker.


----------



## Midnightrider

MMDad said:


> Amazing how you don't consider yourself as the stupid one. Absolutely amazing. Or maybe not.





This_person said:


> Golly, , thanks.  After being party to accusing me of sexual assault, incest, and being mentally ill, your opinion of me matters SOOOO much.



I haven't accused you of anything. You have said that what duggar did was 'weaker' than what you did as a child. :shrug:


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> I haven't accused you of anything. You have said that what duggar did was 'weaker' than what you did as a child. :shrug:



I said it was to my sister?  I said it was to someone asleep?  I said it was to a 5 year old?

No, not so much.  I differentiated between playing doctor and what Duggar did in the very first post where I discussed playing doctor.  I never said what you are saying here.  But, that you can't understand the nuance of a simple conversation is not surprising.  You consistently make up things to meet what you want to see instead of what's there (like when you suggested hypothetical other victims that there is no reason to believe exist).  What Duggar is accused of doing is touching a person over their clothes for a bare second, and when I was little playing doctor was more than just that.  But, as I said, I differentiated between playing doctor and what Duggar did from the very first time I mentioned playing doctor.  What you imputed into that is in your head, not in reality.

So, when you ask me what I did to my sisters, you are accusing me of something I never said I did nor ever did.  You simply don't accept reality, and that is your choice.


----------



## Midnightrider

MMDad said:


> Amazing how you don't consider yourself as the stupid one. Absolutely amazing. Or maybe not.


blissfully stupid.....


This_person said:


> I said it was to my sister?  I said it was to someone asleep?  I said it was to a 5 year old?
> .



you said what duggar did was m'weaker' in comaprision to what you did as a kid playing doctor. What Duggar did was molest his sisters and one other girl while they were sleeping. Unless you did 'worse' then that, what duggar did was not 'weaker'. 

But please, explain how what you did was worse. I'll be interested to hear


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> blissfully stupid.....
> 
> 
> you said what duggar did was m'weaker' in comaprision to what you did as a kid playing doctor. What Duggar did was molest his sisters and one other girl while they were sleeping. Unless you did 'worse' then that, what duggar did was not 'weaker'.
> 
> But please, explain how what you did was worse. I'll be interested to hear


The physical act Duggar did was as I described in my previous post.  My actions were as I described in my previous post.  The differentiation between what Duggar did and the simple act of playing doctor are described in multiple previous posts by me.

I can tell you, but I can't understand it for you.  When you read, you have to actually think.  It's a requirement for understanding.  Please give it a try.


----------



## MMDad

This_person said:


> but one of the main people I find stupid in this.  ........ I really don't understand why they can't just accept that we have differing opinions.  Is as if someone with a differing opinion somehow offends their sensibilities.



Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## MMDad

This_person said:


> I won't go 500 posts though, that was just rhetorical.



Yes, you will. You cannot control yourself. You will continue changing your argument, denying your own words, and twisting the facts until your fingers fall off. You claim that others can't accept that you have a different opinion, yet you will not let something drop until everyone agrees with you. When they stop arguing you claim victory. So predictable.


----------



## This_person

MMDad said:


> Yes, you will. You cannot control yourself. You will continue changing your argument, denying your own words, and twisting the facts until your fingers fall off. You claim that others can't accept that you have a different opinion, yet you will not let something drop until everyone agrees with you. When they stop arguing you claim victory. So predictable.



Note that _*I*_ am the one saying it's okay that we disagree.  I  have said it over and over again.  I've yet to see anyone else say that it's okay for us to disagree except for me.  Certainly you have not.

The instrument has yet to be devised which can measure the miniscule amount of care I have whether or not you agree.

My arguments have remain unchanged, despite the repeated claims to the contrary.  My words are twisted, not vice versa.  I quote people, not impute things on them.  :shrug:

I know you're just ing, so to you I will also say, "Good day."


----------



## MMDad

This_person said:


> Note that _*I*_ am the one saying it's okay that we disagree.  I  have said it over and over again.  I've yet to see anyone else say that it's okay for us to disagree except for me.  Certainly you have not.
> 
> The instrument has yet to be devised which can measure the miniscule amount of care I have whether or not you agree.
> 
> My arguments have remain unchanged, despite the repeated claims to the contrary.  My words are twisted, not vice versa.  I quote people, not impute things on them.  :shrug:
> 
> I know you're just ing, so to you I will also say, "Good day."



 What a maroon.


----------



## Midnightrider

MMDad said:


> What a maroon.



there is something we can ALL agree on and that NO ONE can deny


----------



## This_person

MMDad said:


> What a maroon.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> there is something we can ALL agree on and that NO ONE can deny



Twist reality enough and you'll never be able to deny anything.  When you create the world you live in instead of living in the same one with the rest of us, you can have anything you want be truth.


----------



## MMDad

Only 93 more to 500!


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Twist reality enough and you'll never be able to deny anything.  When you create the world you live in instead of living in the same one with the rest of us, you can have anything you want be truth.





thats for sure, you have twisted it so much you cant even deny being a maroon


----------



## daileyck1

Does everyone think that all Josh duggar did was touch a boobie over clothing?


----------



## Hijinx

daileyck1 said:


> Does everyone think that all Josh duggar did was touch a boobie over clothing?



At this point in this useless post who gives a f**k.

The dye is cast the person who wanted to kill this man's reputation has won. Duggar is not going to be imprisoned or punished,( well he is punished enough in most of our views)and the girls have suffered through more with the BS (according to them, not I) this has caused than they did with the touching. Nothing has changed except some a-hole jealous of this mans success has gotten his rocks off.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> thats for sure, you have twisted it so much you cant even deny being a maroon





	

		
			
		

		
	
Click here


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> View attachment 108581
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click here





You can't talk about reading comprehension. If nothing else, this thread proves that


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> You can't talk about reading comprehension. If nothing else, this thread proves that


----------



## MMDad

This_person said:


> View attachment 108587



86 more to 500. You can't resist replying, can you?

By the way, why do you think that you know better than the parents who went to the police? At what point would you stop covering for your kid?


----------



## Midnightrider

you made it over 12 hours. that's a good start, but you still couldn't resist


----------



## Hank

This_person said:


> View attachment 108587



Are you 12?


----------



## This_person

Hank said:


> Are you 12?



No, why?  Are you into 12 year olds?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> No, why?  Are you into 12 year olds?



Hanks not the one saying molestation is no worse than 'playing doctor'


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Hanks not the one saying molestation is no worse than 'playing doctor'



Who is?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Who is?



A matter of seconds 

You have been all thread


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> A matter of seconds
> 
> You have been all thread


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> View attachment 108601





Only 78 to go. You are almost there. I am sure you can find  80 more memes


----------



## GURPS

*Duggars Reveal BOMBSHELL About Police Chief Who Outed Josh – This Changes Everything*





During their interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, the Duggars eluded to the fact that O’Kelley may have released the records for reasons driven by a personal agenda, and now it appears that those suspicions have been confirmed.

The Duggars have long been active in their community promoting conservative values, and have taken very public stands against the LGBT movement. Wouldn’t you know it, O’Kelley is a lesbian.

Not only that, but she is about to retire.

Why not release those damning records earlier on in her career to take down a family who has fought against same-sex marriage and transgender bathrooms? Because it was illegal to do so and O’Kelley had to wait to make her move until she was on the way out anyway.



Source: Daily Mail




> Is this the moment Michelle Duggar blames retiring police chief's 'lesbian agenda' for the release of records about son Josh molesting four of her daughters?
> 
> 
> Michelle Duggar appeared to accuse the local chief of police of having a 'lesbian agenda' against her family during Wednesday night's interview
> Her mumbled remark sparked a flurry of comments on social media about what exactly she was accusing Chief Kathy O'Kelley off
> Husband Jim Bob then reiteriated that he believed O'Kelley had a 'personal agenda' against his family
> The Duggars are well known for their anti-gay stance and Michelle once voiced a robocall that equated transgender people to 'child predators'
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...h-molesting-four-daughters.html#ixzz3dc5XQlSk
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Hank

Oh Boy!

http://gawker.com/family-values-act..._source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Family Values Activist Josh Duggar Had a Paid Ashley Madison Account


----------



## littlelady

I have never understood why people get off on the misdeeds or controversial lives of others.  It always reminds me of people putting on their brakes to gawk at some one pulled over by LEO on the side of the road, which makes the person behind them put on their brakes.  Does it make people feel better about themselves, or what?  I have always wondered about the fascination of it all.


----------



## vraiblonde

Hank said:


> Oh Boy!
> 
> http://gawker.com/family-values-act..._source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
> 
> Family Values Activist Josh Duggar Had a Paid Ashley Madison Account



Loothy, you gotta lotta sthplaining to do....

Why is the left on such a rampage over this guy?  What has he done so bad that he deserves to be such a target?  I don't understand why anyone cares about him.


----------



## Hank

vraiblonde said:


> What has he done so bad that he deserves to be such a target?  .



Aside from diddling his Sisters?


----------



## This_person

Hank said:


> Aside from diddling his Sisters?



Wow, what a gross exaggeration!


----------



## vraiblonde

Hank said:


> Aside from diddling his Sisters?



Why do we care about that?  There's so much worse going on in the world, why is Josh Duggar such a focus?  Because he was on some half-assed reality show?


----------



## littlelady

vraiblonde said:


> Why do we care about that?  There's so much worse going on in the world, why is Josh Duggar such a focus?  Because he was on some half-assed reality show?



This ^.


----------



## Bann

vraiblonde said:


> Why do we care about that?  There's so much worse going on in the world, why is Josh Duggar such a focus?  Because he was on some half-assed reality show?



Because he has human failings.  I guess "religious" people who have personal human failings are considered to have failed worserer than other people who aren't "religious".


----------



## vraiblonde

Bann said:


> Because he has human failings.  I guess "religious" people who have personal human failings are considered to have failed worserer than other people who aren't "religious".



See, and I don't get that.  Why is it wrong to promote traditional family values?  Why does that threaten so many people and cause their heads to spin off?  Hell, most of the gay people I know live traditionally - family, job, home - so it can't be because of that.  And now it's actually *all* of the gays I know because my last two wild guy gay friends have both settled down into marriage and fatherhood.


----------



## Hijinx

vraiblonde said:


> See, and I don't get that.  Why is it wrong to promote traditional family values?  Why does that threaten so many people and cause their heads to spin off?  Hell, most of the gay people I know live traditionally - family, job, home - so it can't be because of that.  And now it's actually *all* of the gays I know because my last two wild guy gay friends have both settled down into marriage and fatherhood.



Sinners like to see people taken down it makes them feel better about their sins.


----------



## daileyck1

vraiblonde said:


> Why do we care about that?  There's so much worse going on in the world, why is Josh Duggar such a focus?  Because he was on some half-assed reality show?



Do you really think Josh just copped a feel?


----------



## tblwdc

vraiblonde said:


> Why do we care about that?  There's so much worse going on in the world, why is Josh Duggar such a focus?  Because he was on some half-assed reality show?



I'm a fan of the Duggars and am somehow interested in their show.  I find it interesting that they can raise kids in the manner that they did.  I think they did the best as they could as parents and tried to handle things as best they could, but seemingly failed.  

I'm conservative, well moderate really but definitely not left.  I find the hypocrisy of Josh Duggar, pretending to be religious and stick to his religion on a "reality" television show and then being a horn dog looking for some strange.  It's nobody's business that you do that until you make yourself a public figure.  Once you do that and proclaim all these family values of course people are going to jump all over you.


----------



## libertytyranny

Dixie said:


> That's exactly why I find it interesting too.  Although I felt bad for Josh Duggar when all the things that he did at a younger age came out - it's fascinating to me that as a once Executive Director for Family Research Council preaching family, values, and virtue, that he still had the balls to sign up.  If it's true.



With his own, full name and address..PLUS use recognizable screen names like Josh_the_man. Seems..fishy or the guy is REALLLLY stupid.


----------



## Amused_despair

Dixie said:


> Again if it's true...it's a train wreck and lots of people "like" train wrecks therefore the interest
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/new...-anna-duggar-biggest-181646308-us-weekly.html
> 
> "Josh Duggar has confessed to cheating on his wife Anna Duggar, just one day after the emails of millions of users on infidelity website Ashley Madison were exposed, including the eldest Duggar son's information.
> 
> In a statement released on the Duggar family's official website on Thursday, Aug. 20, Josh admitted to being unfaithful to his wife Anna, also the mother of his four kids."



I think the answer is the guy is really stupid, and a hypocrite, but mostly just stupid.


----------



## Hijinx

Amused_despair said:


> I think the answer is the guy is really stupid, and a hypocrite, but mostly just stupid.



Let anyone who didn't F**k up as a teen ager cast the first stone.


----------



## Hank

Hijinx said:


> Let anyone who didn't F**k up as a teen ager cast the first stone.



Yeah, because I'm sure tons of teenagers diddle their little Sisters...


----------



## tblwdc

Hijinx said:


> Let anyone who didn't F**k up as a teen ager cast the first stone.



Why is it you feel obligated to somehow defend what this guy has done?  I doubt you molested your sisters and cheated on your wife?  

He's a family values advocate and is CHEATING ON HIS WIFE.  Don't you find that a little hypocritical?

He didn't just f**k up as a teenager, he cheated on his wife who has four kids.  I've got a bunch of rocks here because I have never done either.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> Why is it you feel obligated to somehow defend what this guy has done?  I doubt you molested your sisters and cheated on your wife?
> 
> He's a family values advocate and is CHEATING ON HIS WIFE.  Don't you find that a little hypocritical?
> 
> He didn't just f**k up as a teenager, he cheated on his wife who has four kids.  I've got a bunch of rocks here because I have never done either.



While I see no reason to defend this new revelation, I also see no reason to revel in it.  Does his infidelity change the value of what he preached?  Does his mistakes make everything else he has said wrong?  Of course not.  He's fallible, like the rest of us.  He did stuff hugely hypocritical, like every one of us has.  What a shocker.


----------



## littlelady

This_person said:


> While I see no reason to defend this new revelation, I also see no reason to revel in it.  Does his infidelity change the value of what he preached?  Does his mistakes make everything else he has said wrong?  Of course not.  He's fallible, like the rest of us.  He did stuff hugely hypocritical, like every one of us has.  What a shocker.



Nailed it!  I think he is very brave to come out, and call himself out.  No excuses.  His marriage is ruined, and maybe his life.  Like I said earlier in this thread, I don't understand why people feed off of someone else's misfortune.  I see it time and time again on this forum.  Oh, well.  I still hold out hope for humanity.


----------



## Salvador

littlelady said:


> Nailed it!  I think he is very brave to come out, and call himself out.  No excuses.  His marriage is ruined, and maybe his life.  Like I said earlier in this thread, I don't understand why people feed off of someone else's misfortune.  I see it time and time again on this forum.  Oh, well.  I still hold out hope for humanity.


----------



## littlelady

Salvador said:


>



Did you delete your commentary about the subject of this thread?  It is not frowned upon if you edit.  Oh wait, never mind.  You are just being a jerk with nothing of substance to say.


----------



## PsyOps

littlelady said:


> Nailed it!  I think he is very brave to come out, and call himself out.  No excuses.  His marriage is ruined, and maybe his life.  Like I said earlier in this thread, I don't understand why people feed off of someone else's misfortune.  I see it time and time again on this forum.  Oh, well.  I still hold out hope for humanity.



Oh horse****!  It's just like all the others... they suddenly become humble and "brave" in their admission of wrong-doing AFTER they get caught.  I am reluctant to judge someone for what they did when they were 14; I would only from the aspect of what the parents might have been doing to prevent it or recognize the problem.  I view adults that only recognize their wrong-doing after they get caught as cowards.

But, it needs to be said I think that this is the consequence of parents that would exploit their children for money; parade them all over the tube without considering what viewers might think if something goes wrong.  The parents made their kids targets.  To me, this is the sad narrative of 'reality TV'.


----------



## Bann

tblwdc said:


> Why is it you feel obligated to somehow defend what this guy has done?  I doubt you molested your sisters and cheated on your wife?
> 
> He's a family values advocate and is CHEATING ON HIS WIFE.  Don't you find that a little hypocritical?
> 
> He didn't just f**k up as a teenager, he cheated on his wife who has four kids.  I've got a bunch of rocks here because I have never done either.



Okay, he is hypocritical.  Guess what?  He has been caught, forced to admit, and now will pay for his failings.  Everyone's outraged that someone committed a sin, had a failure in judgment, made mistakes.  

You may have a bunch of rocks (to throw?) because you've never done *what he's done* - but no doubt you've made other mistakes or had a lapse in judgment sometime in your life.  No one is perfect.  

Will he change or learn from his mistake?  Will he be able to make amends for it?  Time will tell.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> While I see no reason to defend this new revelation, I also see no reason to revel in it.  Does his infidelity change the value of what he preached?  Does his mistakes make everything else he has said wrong?  Of course not.  He's fallible, like the rest of us.  *He did stuff hugely hypocritical, like every one of us has.*  What a shocker.



You don't know me, but if you did, you would not associate me with a hypocrite.  If that is you, then so be it, but not every one of us is a hypocrite.  I believe in what I say.  I practice what I preach.  

This does discredit him and his message.  How can you believe anything he says.  I never revel in anyone person's misfortunes, but that doesn't mean I ignore them either.


----------



## tblwdc

Bann said:


> Okay, he is hypocritical.  Guess what?  He has been caught, forced to admit, and now will pay for his failings.  Everyone's outraged that someone committed a sin, had a failure in judgment, made mistakes.
> 
> You may have a bunch of rocks (to throw?) because you've never done *what he's done* - but no doubt you've made other mistakes or had a lapse in judgment sometime in your life.  No one is perfect.
> 
> Will he change or learn from his mistake?  Will he be able to make amends for it?  Time will tell.



Obviously he has not learned from his mistake.  Time has told!  He first sexually assaults his sisters, then he cheats on his wife.  If that isn't a deviant I don't know what is?  By no means am I saying I'm perfect.  I am no hypocrite though.  I will not go out and pretend to be someone I am not.

I would hope that you remember your words then next time you decide to be critical of someone.  Funny, I've never heard you say this about other people you have chosen to lambaste.


----------



## Bann

PsyOps said:


> Oh horse****!  It's just like all the others... they suddenly become humble and "brave" in their admission of wrong-doing AFTER they get caught.  I am reluctant to judge someone for what they did when they were 14; I would only from the aspect of what the parents might have been doing to prevent it or recognize the problem.  I view adults that only recognize their wrong-doing after they get caught as cowards.
> 
> But, it needs to be said I think that this is the consequence of parents that would exploit their children for money; parade them all over the tube without considering what viewers might think if something goes wrong.  The parents made their kids targets.  To me, this is the sad narrative of 'reality TV'.




I didn't read his statement, just heard the headlines, etc.   Did the statement say whether he had already told the wife?  

I guess in today's world of the internet, peeps better watch their P's and Q's and not be such skeeves or pervs - because they surely will get caught at some point.


----------



## PsyOps

Bann said:


> I didn't read his statement, just heard the headlines, etc.   Did the statement say whether he had already told the wife?
> 
> I guess in today's world of the internet, peeps better watch their P's and Q's and not be such skeeves or pervs - because they surely will get caught at some point.



Statement from Josh Duggar:



> I have been the biggest hypocrite ever. While espousing faith and family values, I have been unfaithful to my wife.
> 
> I am so ashamed of the double life that I have been living and am grieved for the hurt, pain and disgrace my sin has caused my wife and family, and most of all Jesus and all those who profess faith in Him.
> 
> I have brought hurt and a reproach to my family, close friends and the fans of our show with my actions.
> 
> The last few years, while publicly stating I was fighting against immorality in our country I was hiding my own personal failures.
> 
> As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences. I deeply regret all the hurt I have caused so many by being such a bad example.
> 
> I humbly ask for your forgiveness. Please pray for my precious wife Anna and our family during this time.
> 
> Josh Duggar



This just makes me think of the Hillary email thing... so much dishonesty and corruption.  What's so odd about this is, the same people that are judging Josh (which is fair), are the same people making excuses for Hillary.


----------



## tblwdc

PsyOps said:


> Statement from Josh Duggar:
> 
> ​
> This just makes me think of the Hillary email thing... so much dishonesty and corruption.  What's so odd about this is, the same people that are judging Josh (which is fair), *are the same people making excuses for Hillary*.



What????  I think Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt politician we have!  Along with corrupt, I think she's inept.  I believe her arrogance and ignorance cost American lives.  

Why is it people try to make one thing into another.  This guy is a deviant.  He lacks self control and is a liar.


----------



## PsyOps

tblwdc said:


> What????  I think Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt politician we have!  Along with corrupt, I think she's inept.  I believe her arrogance and ignorance cost American lives.
> 
> Why is it people try to make one thing into another.  This guy is a deviant.  He lacks self control and is a liar.



You highlighted my point but didn't seem to get it.  

How is it the same people (progressives) that are vilifying Josh Duggar are giving Hillary a pass?  Josh's and Hillary's behavior is rooted in corruption and blatant dishonesty.  I'm fed up with these people (progressives) claiming they hold the moral high ground through condemning Christians for their bad behavior, while turning a blind eye to the corruption that exists among their own.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> You don't know me, but if you did, you would not associate me with a hypocrite.  If that is you, then so be it, but not every one of us is a hypocrite.  I believe in what I say.  I practice what I preach.
> 
> This does discredit him and his message.  How can you believe anything he says.  I never revel in anyone person's misfortunes, but that doesn't mean I ignore them either.



If you believe that you have never done anything hypocritical, you should reexamine your actions.  You are correct that I don't know you, of course.  But, I am fairly certain that you are human.

If you can't separate the message from the messenger, I feel sad for you.  So, because his message of fidelity conflicts with his actions, then you have to believe fidelity is not a good message?  "Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story."  This is good advice, but I've made mistakes in my life, so I must be wrong, right?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> If you believe that you have never done anything hypocritical, you should reexamine your actions.  You are correct that I don't know you, of course.  But, I am fairly certain that you are human.
> 
> If you can't separate the message from the messenger, I feel sad for you.  So, because his message of fidelity conflicts with his actions, then you have to believe fidelity is not a good message?  "Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story."  This is good advice, but I've made mistakes in my life, so I must be wrong, right?



you were wrong when you defended duggar for touching his sisters, you were wrong for defending his family for not handling it properly, and you are wrong in defending him now. neither his hypocricy nor his sexual misdeeds deserve any defending.


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> What's so odd about this is, the same people that are judging Josh (which is fair), are the same people making excuses for Hillary.



That's not odd at all.  

So sorry, Josh Duggar, you are NOT the biggest hypocrite ever.  Political party zealots have you beat by a mile.


----------



## Hank

PsyOps said:


> Statement from Josh Duggar:
> 
> ​
> This just makes me think of the Hillary email thing... so much dishonesty and corruption.  What's so odd about this is, the same people that are judging Josh (which is fair), are the same people making excuses for Hillary.



How is this even political? I have hardcore republican friends that think Josh is creep.


----------



## vraiblonde

Hank said:


> How is this even political? I have hardcore republican friends that think Josh is creep.



Chances are good that your hardcore Republican friends aren't digging through the mountains of Ashley Madison data looking for him.


----------



## Hank

vraiblonde said:


> Chances are good that your hardcore Republican friends aren't digging through the mountains of Ashley Madison data looking for him.



Yeah, because Republicans never dig for dirt on people. They are all so wholesome and virginal....


----------



## Gilligan

Hank said:


> Yeah, because Republicans never dig for dirt on people. They are all so wholesome and virginal....



Probably explains why I got thrown out....


----------



## PsyOps

Hank said:


> How is this even political? I have hardcore republican friends that think Josh is creep.



First of all, I don't think it's political to point out dishonesty and how certain groups will use it when they think it benefits them, or explain it away when it doesn't.

I think Josh is a creep too.  I think Hillary is a bigger creep because she was capable of doing far more damage to this country than Josh; and we are seeing the results of this damage: dead Americans and damage to national security.


----------



## Hank

PsyOps said:


> First of all, I don't think it's political to point out dishonesty and how certain groups will use it when they think it benefits them, or explain it away when it doesn't.
> 
> I think Josh is a creep too.  I think Hillary is a bigger creep because she was capable of doing far more damage to this country than Josh; and we are seeing the results of this damage: dead Americans and damage to national security.



How does this benefit a political group? I think it is a known fact that with celebrity comes scrutiny. It is part of the price you pay for hitting that lottery.

I don't understand how bringing Hillary in the discussion has anything to do with a creepy dude that gets off on his Sisters and extra-marital affairs.


----------



## tblwdc

PsyOps said:


> You highlighted my point but didn't seem to get it.
> 
> How is it the same people (progressives) that are vilifying Josh Duggar are giving Hillary a pass?  Josh's and Hillary's behavior is rooted in corruption and blatant dishonesty.  I'm fed up with these people (progressives) claiming they hold the moral high ground through condemning Christians for their bad behavior, while turning a blind eye to the corruption that exists among their own.



Why don't you name the people you are referring to rather than make a statement which is too vague?  I'm not liberal.  I blame Hillary but find Duggar equally disgusting.


----------



## Midnightrider

Hank said:


> How does this benefit a political group? I think it is a known fact that with celebrity comes scrutiny. It is part of the price you pay for hitting that lottery.
> 
> I don't understand how bringing Hillary in the discussion has anything to do with a creepy dude that gets off on his Sisters and extra-marital affairs.


  exactly, Duggar touching children and cheating on his wife has nothing to do with hillary or any other political figure. I dont see any value is distracting from the issue by bringing her into it.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> If you can't separate the message from the messenger, I feel sad for you.  So, because his message of fidelity conflicts with his actions, then you have to believe fidelity is not a good message?  "Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story."  This is good advice, but I've made mistakes in my life, so I must be wrong, right?



First things first.  I'm not now, nor have I ever been a hypocrite.  Do you know what that means?  I don't pretend to be anything I am not.  Am I without sin?  Absolutely not.  I have never however, molested a child or cheated on my wife.  Period.  Now, what makes him a hypocrite is that he preached family values while cheating.

Second, I never once said fidelity is not good.  I defy you to show me anything close to that.  I said HE lacks credibility.  

If you believe he has credibility, then it is you who are sad my friend.  I know you are trying to spin this the best you can, but he is a horrible person.  If it was just his cheating on his wife, well that's his and her business.  He has brought discredit to him and his family with his actions but people like you want to minimize that somehow. 

I doubt you would have the same message if this were a person you did not like.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> you were wrong when you defended duggar for touching his sisters, you were wrong for defending his family for not handling it properly, and you are wrong in defending him now. neither his hypocricy nor his sexual misdeeds deserve any defending.



I appreciate your critique, but as usual it is wholly inaccurate.





This_person said:


> While I see no reason to defend this new revelation, I also see no reason to revel in it. .


What part of not defending him did you turn into me defending him?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I appreciate your critique, but as usual it is wholly inaccurate.
> What part of not defending him did you turn into me defending him?



every other part of your posts in this thread are defending him. 

your statement is like when people say "i'm not being racist" and then go on to spew racist crapola.

But i will give you credit, you only need to blab on about "not defedning duggar" for 2 1/2 more pages and you will get to the 50 pages you have been shooting for


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> I appreciate your critique, but as usual it is wholly inaccurate.
> What part of not defending him did you turn into me defending him?



Well you say you aren't defending him, but then try to cast stones at those who would say he's evil.  You called me a hypocrite and you have no evidence of me being hypocritical what so ever.  You had more evidence of him being a complete scumbag but you would say those who are calling him out are some how bad people.  So you are at least passively defending him.


----------



## tblwdc

Midnightrider said:


> exactly, Duggar touching children and cheating on his wife has nothing to do with hillary or any other political figure. I dont see any value is distracting from the issue by bringing her into it.



It does have something to do with character.  He lacks character the same way Hillary does.  They are both public figures who have lied to the American public.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> First things first.  I'm not now, nor have I ever been a hypocrite.  Do you know what that means?  I don't pretend to be anything I am not.  Am I without sin?  Absolutely not.  I have never however, molested a child or cheated on my wife.  Period.  Now, what makes him a hypocrite is that he preached family values while cheating.
> 
> Second, I never once said fidelity is not good.  I defy you to show me anything close to that.  I said HE lacks credibility.
> 
> If you believe he has credibility, then it is you who are sad my friend.  I know you are trying to spin this the best you can, but he is a horrible person.  If it was just his cheating on his wife, well that's his and her business.  He has brought discredit to him and his family with his actions but people like you want to minimize that somehow.
> 
> I doubt you would have the same message if this were a person you did not like.



So, you have never once in your life lied?  Or, do you not espouse honesty?  You've never once in your life exceeded the speed limit, or do you not believe following the law is the right principle to follow?  You can't have it both ways.  You're either human, and therefore done something hypocritical, or you're Jesus.  Do you believe that you are Jesus?

With respect to his message, you said





tblwdc said:


> This does discredit him and his message.


Now, I can understand discrediting HIM, but you said, "and his message."  Respectfully, I disagree.  I still think family and faith are credible messages.  Martin Luther King, Jr., was a horrible womanizer who constantly cheated on his wife.  Does that discredit his message?  Quoting you above, it does.  Again, I respectfully disagree.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> every other part of your posts in this thread are defending him.
> 
> your statement is like when people say "i'm not being racist" and then go on to spew racist crapola.
> 
> But i will give you credit, you only need to blab on about "not defedning duggar" for 2 1/2 more pages and you will get to the 50 pages you have been shooting for



Again, your interpretation of my statements is inaccurate.  I believe him to be a man with a sex addiction, much like President Clinton, and it's likely (statistically speaking) that is from some early trauma.  I have never once condoned nor excused nor exaggerated his actions.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> So, you have never once in your life lied?  Or, do you not espouse honesty?  You've never once in your life exceeded the speed limit, or do you not believe following the law is the right principle to follow?  You can't have it both ways.  You're either human, and therefore done something hypocritical, or you're Jesus.  Do you believe that you are Jesus?
> 
> With respect to his message, you saidNow, I can understand discrediting HIM, but you said, "and his message."  Respectfully, I disagree.  I still think family and faith are credible messages.  Martin Luther King, Jr., was a horrible womanizer who constantly cheated on his wife.  Does that discredit his message?  Quoting you above, it does.  Again, I respectfully disagree.



What does me lying or speeding have to do with being a hypocrite.  I don't go preaching to the world not to lie.  Why is it you feel you have to attack other people's credibility but won't acknowledge that he is scum.  Everyone can make a mistake.  Molesting your sister and cheating on your wife who has bore you four children while running around the country telling everyone they need to live a good life absolutely discredits him and any message he is delivering.  

My father taught me to be a good man. He taught me to be faithful and to respect my wife.  To put her on a pedestal.  His message is not lost because that is how he lived his life.  

Answer this question.  Do you think Josh Duggar is a bad person?


----------



## GURPS

tblwdc said:


> It's nobody's business that you do that until you make yourself a public figure.  Once you do that and proclaim all these family values of course people are going to jump all over you.





how many have fallen victim to sexual temptation ? [Christian Leaders not democrats]


----------



## tblwdc

GURPS said:


> how many have fallen victim to sexual temptation ? [Christian Leaders not democrats]



I don't know the answer to that question and don't know why you are asking me.  I would find them all disgusting if they are molesting children or cheating on their spouse.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> What does me lying or speeding have to do with being a hypocrite.  I don't go preaching to the world not to lie.  Why is it you feel you have to attack other people's credibility but won't acknowledge that he is scum.  Everyone can make a mistake.  Molesting your sister and cheating on your wife who has bore you four children while running around the country telling everyone they need to live a good life absolutely discredits him and any message he is delivering.
> 
> My father taught me to be a good man. He taught me to be faithful and to respect my wife.  To put her on a pedestal.  His message is not lost because that is how he lived his life.
> 
> Answer this question.  Do you think Josh Duggar is a bad person?



You're really going to double down on saying his message is discredited?

I'm not challenging your credibility, I am acknowledging that you're human.  Hypocrisy is not about whether you've told someone else your principles and then violated them.  Hypocrisy is about violating your principles.  If you believe stealing is wrong, but you have screwed around at work even for one minute, you have acted hypocritically.

Again, try and separate the message from the messenger.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> You're really going to double down on saying his message is discredited?
> 
> I'm not challenging your credibility, I am acknowledging that you're human.  Hypocrisy is not about whether you've told someone else your principles and then violated them.  Hypocrisy is about violating your principles.  If you believe stealing is wrong, but you have screwed around at work even for one minute, you have acted hypocritically.
> 
> Again, try and separate the message from the messenger.



You failed to answer my question.  Do you believe Josh Duggar is a bad person?


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> Answer this question.  Do you think Josh Duggar is a bad person?



What is a "bad person"?  I think he's clearly done bad things.  He's also done a lot of good things.  Does that make him automatically a "good person"?  I don't think so.  I think he's a person.


----------



## libertytyranny

Being curious and looking at naked girls is normal. Touching while they are sleeping might even be considered normal if it happened once. However, not only did he touch his sisters inappropriately and others as well, he did it AGAIN after feeling guilty and reporting it. He established a pattern of having poor impulse control on something he knew was wrong. Fast forward and he is just exhibiting that pattern with pornography and affairs. Perhaps if he wasn't in such a sexually repressive family he wouldn't have to creep around and could just be a "playa" and live like any other frat boy. Instead he's been indoctrinated and forced his whole life to play out a lifestyle that he obviously does not agree with. Of course he was on all those counsels and stuff, his family's livelihood depended on it. They made a mint on that show and through their associations with all of those pro life and Christian groups.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> What is a "bad person"?  I think he's clearly done bad things.  He's also done a lot of good things.  Does that make him automatically a "good person"?  I don't think so.  I think he's a person.



A bad person is a person who lives a lie where he is cheating on his family and using family resources to further his sexual fantasies.  I didn't realize I would have to explain what a bad person is.  Anyway, what has he done which is good?


----------



## This_person

> Perhaps if he wasn't in such a sexually repressive family he wouldn't have to creep around and could just be a "playa" and live like any other frat boy. Instead he's been indoctrinated and forced his whole life to play out a lifestyle that he obviously does not agree with.


That's not how addiction works.

If he didn't agree, why does he feel guilty?


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> A bad person is a person who lives a lie where he is cheating on his family and using family resources to further his sexual fantasies.  I didn't realize I would have to explain what a bad person is.  Anyway, what has he done which is good?



Every person who has cheated or wasted family resources is bad?  Not that they've done bad things,  but they are inherently bad?

Would you like to rethink that, or are you that judgemental?


----------



## GURPS

vraiblonde said:


> That's not odd at all.
> 
> So sorry, Josh Duggar, you are NOT the biggest hypocrite ever.  Political party zealots have you beat by a mile.





no body said anything about the Kennedy's 

but Ol'Teddy stood up there for Women's Rights


----------



## GURPS

tblwdc said:


> I don't know the answer to that question and don't know why you are asking me.  I would find them all disgusting if they are molesting children or cheating on their spouse.





it was a general statement ... on society
 .... many men of the church fall to temptation and have to step down 
 .... as TP said this guy has an untreated addiction, like an Alcoholic or Dope user 

Jimmy Swagart
James Baker 

to name a couple ....

non church going types ... love to make a huge deal out of things like this 
.... like because someone claims a faith, they are telling the world they sin no more


----------



## GURPS

libertytyranny said:


> Perhaps if he wasn't *in such a sexually repressive family* he wouldn't have to creep around and could just be a "playa" and live like any other frat boy.





A has nothing to do with B 


plenty of Good Kids from Good Homes go on to do bad things ....


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> Every person who has cheated or wasted family resources is bad?  Not that they've done bad things,  but they are inherently bad?
> 
> Would you like to rethink that, or are you that judgemental?



You're right.  I rethought it.  A bad person is a person who lives a lie where he is cheating on his family, using family resouces to further his sexual fantasies, and has molested multiple children.  

You failed to tell me what he has done which is good.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> What is a "bad person"?  I think he's clearly done bad things.  He's also done a lot of good things.  Does that make him automatically a "good person"?  I don't think so.  I think he's a person.


The guy molested young girls, most of whom were his sisters. then he acted on his sexual desires destroying his marriage. 


This_person said:


> Every person who has cheated or wasted family resources is bad?  Not that they've done bad things,  but they are inherently bad?
> 
> Would you like to rethink that, or are you that judgemental?


A molester is a bad person. (period)
I guess you still aren't defending jared, right? Nope, you are wrong again. your posts say it all.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> You're right.  I rethought it.  A bad person is a person who lives a lie where he is cheating on his family, using family resouces to further his sexual fantasies, and has molested multiple children.
> 
> You failed to tell me what he has done which is good.


And you have failed to tell me if you believe breaking the law is wrong and yet you have ever gone even 1 mph over the speed limit. 

Very few people are "bad".  People do good and bad things. A Duggar is no different.  I strongly suspect that you are not Jesus,  and therefore you do, too.  This particular individual needs help.  I hope he gets it.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> The guy molested young girls, most of whom were his sisters. then he acted on his sexual desires destroying his marriage.
> 
> A molester is a bad person. (period)
> I guess you still aren't defending jared, right? Nope, you are wrong again. your posts say it all.



Because of their strong Christian faith, I would bet his marriage isn't over.  Actual Christians are not judgemental.  They love the sinner while hating the sin. Josh has admitted to doing some truly bad things.   We can agree on that.  He's not Hitler or Khan, but he has a lot for which he needs to repent.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> And you have failed to tell me if you believe breaking the law is wrong and yet you have ever gone even 1 mph over the speed limit.
> 
> Very few people are "bad".  People do good and bad things. A Duggar is no different.  I strongly suspect that you are not Jesus,  and therefore you do, too.  This particular individual needs help.  I hope he gets it.



I do think that breaking the law is bad.  I have certainly gone over the speed limit.  I don't go around preaching to people that they should not speed though, therefore I am not a hypocrite.  

There's your answer.  I'm not talking about the Duggar family.  I have tremendous respect for the father, mother and the way they live their life.  If tomorrow, If found the father had committed some sort of heinous crime such as molesting children, then cheated on his wife, my respect for them would be gone.

So, what has Josh done which is good?


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> I do think that breaking the law is bad.  I have certainly gone over the speed limit.  I don't go around preaching to people that they should not speed though, therefore I am not a hypocrite.
> 
> There's your answer.  I'm not talking about the Duggar family.  I have tremendous respect for the father, mother and the way they live their life.  If tomorrow, If found the father had committed some sort of heinous crime such as molesting children, then cheated on his wife, my respect for them would be gone.
> 
> So, what has Josh done which is good?


If you do something contrary to your morals or principles,  you have acted as a hypocrite.  Just because others don't know it doesn't mean that you weren't acting as a hypocrite. 

I didn't say The Duggar Family.  I said "a Duggar."  Josh did everything his parents have that make you respect them and more.  AND he's ####ed up.  If you judge an entire life by one facet, one sickness, that's your choice. I am not that short-sighted or judgemental.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> If you do something contrary to your morals or principles,  you have acted as a hypocrite.  Just because others don't know it doesn't mean that you weren't acting as a hypocrite.
> 
> I didn't say The Duggar Family.  I said "a Duggar."  Josh did everything his parents have that make you respect them and more.  AND he's ####ed up.  If you judge an entire life by one facet, one sickness, that's your choice. I am not that short-sighted or judgemental.



Speeding isn't contrary to my morals or principles.  Just because the legislature has passed a law doesn't mean it meets my morals.  There are differences.  I'm sorry you can't grip that principle.  

You said a Duggar.  You didn't say Josh Duggar.  If you are going to be intentionally vague, i'll interpret that in any fashion I choose.

I'm not judging an entire life by ONE facet.  I am judging this scum bag based on molesting multiple children and cheating on his wife and children.  

So are you saying if a person only molested children and cheated, you wouldn't be judgmental?  Okay, that is your choice.  I don't believe you, but your choice.  I think if this person who did this was not of your political persuasion or of someone with opposing views as you, I believe you'd be a lot more judgmental.  You are not short sighted, you are blind.

Josh did not do everything his father did.  As far as we know, his father has been able to respect his children, protect his children and not bring shame on them.  His father has been a member of the legislature passing laws.  His father has, as far as we know been able to keep his vows and been faithful to his wife.  

Still, you are incapable of telling me what good Josh Duggar has done.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> Speeding isn't contrary to my morals or principles.  Just because the legislature has passed a law doesn't mean it meets my morals.  There are differences.  I'm sorry you can't grip that principle.


Not breaking the law is a principle by which one lives.  If you have that principle and violate the law, you are a hypocrite,  just like 100% of the rest of the people who are not Jesus. 





> You said a Duggar.  You didn't say Josh Duggar.  If you are going to be intentionally vague, i'll interpret that in any fashion I choose.
> 
> I'm not judging an entire life by ONE facet.  I am judging this scum bag based on molesting multiple children and cheating on his wife and children.


The one facet by which you are judging him is a mental health issue, sex addiction.





> So are you saying if a person only molested children and cheated, you wouldn't be judgmental?  Okay, that is your choice.  I don't believe you, but your choice.  I think if this person who did this was not of your political persuasion or of someone with opposing views as you, I believe you'd be a lot more judgmental.  You are not short sighted, you are blind.


I am no more judgemental of Duggar than I am of Clinton or Martin Luther King Jr.  All of those men are/were mentally ill.  Their illness: sex addiction.  I don't discount their good works nor diminish their bad behavior. 





> Josh did not do everything his father did.  As far as we know, his father has been able to respect his children, protect his children and not bring shame on them.  His father has been a member of the legislature passing laws.  His father has, as far as we know been able to keep his vows and been faithful to his wife.
> 
> Still, you are incapable of telling me what good Josh Duggar has done.


Josh advocated publicly for faith and family.  He loves and cares for his children and wife.  He volunteers for and advocates for the poor and helpless.  And he's a sex addict.  None of these things diminish the others.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Because of their strong Christian faith, I would bet his marriage isn't over.  *Actual Christians are not judgemental. * They love the sinner while hating the sin. Josh has admitted to doing some truly bad things.   We can agree on that.  He's not Hitler or Khan, but he has a lot for which he needs to repent.



 
There aren't any 'Actual Christians' if that's your definition.

He's a molester who has cheated on his wife. And that's just what we know about, yet you keep defending him.

FOR FIFTY PAGES


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> There aren't any 'Actual Christians' if that's your definition.
> 
> He's a molester who has cheated on his wife. And that's just what we know about, yet you keep defending him.
> 
> FOR FIFTY PAGES



You keep using that word (defending).  I'm not sure you know what it means.  I've said his actions are wrong, that he is mentally ill.  If you believe that to be "defending", then you need to look up the meaning of the word.  I simply refuse to be so narrow as to judge him the way you are.

And, there are tens of millions of Christians who fit that description.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> You keep using that word (defending).  I'm not sure you know what it means.  I've said his actions are wrong, that he is mentally ill.  If you believe that to be "defending", then you need to look up the meaning of the word.  I simply refuse to be so narrow as to judge him the way you are.
> 
> And, there are tens of millions of Christians who fit that description.



No, there are not.


The thread speaks for itself


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> No, there are not.
> 
> 
> The thread speaks for itself



Half right (thread speaks for itself, albeit differently than you ascribe), and half wrong (that there are no real Christians).  You're post accuracy is improving.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> Not breaking the law is a principle by which one lives.  If you have that principle and violate the law, you are a hypocrite,  just like 100% of the rest of the people who are not Jesus.
> 
> You don't get to decide what I feel is morally acceptable.  I do. Just because some government passes a law, it doesn't mean I have to subscribe to it.  There are some laws which are immoral.
> 
> 
> The one facet by which you are judging him is a mental health issue, sex addiction.I am no more judgemental of Duggar than I am of Clinton or Martin Luther King Jr.  All of those men are/were mentally ill.  Their illness: sex addiction.  I don't discount their good works nor diminish their bad behavior.
> 
> He is self diagnosed with PORN addiction.  Not sex addiction.  Get it right if you are going to say it.
> 
> Josh advocated publicly for faith and family.  He loves and cares for his children and wife.  He volunteers for and advocates for the poor and helpless.  And he's a sex addict.  None of these things diminish the others.



He's not a sex addict.  He lies about faith and family.  His actions diminish his words.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> You don't get to decide what I feel is morally acceptable. I do. Just because some government passes a law, it doesn't mean I have to subscribe to it. There are some laws which are immoral.


I never once tried to do so.  I asked you and your answer is that violating the law is against your principles.  Now you're suggesting that speed limits are immoral?  Either way, your principle, as you defined, is to not break the law.  Your actions, as you reported, is to violate the law by speeding.  The dictionary.com definition of hypocrite is:noun
1.  a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.  a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.  

You, like 100% of people who are not Jesus, act as a hypocrite.  You, like probably 85% of people, think your actions are somehow different.  They're not.





> He is self diagnosed with PORN addiction. Not sex addiction. Get it right if you are going to say it.  He's not a sex addict.


I self-diagnose as a very attractive, fit, 27 year old.  The reality is that I'm a slightly over-weight man who hasn't been in my 20s for decades.  His actions, reality, contradict his self-diagnosis.





> He lies about faith and family.  His actions diminish his words.


Or, more accurately likely, his illness diminishes his principles.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> I never once tried to do so.
> 
> I said breaking the law is bad in relation to committing a crime in which you can go to jail.  I don't do that.  Josh Duggar does.  It's a nice straw man argument trying to equate speeding to child molestation, but you fail.
> 
> I asked you and your answer is that violating the law is against your principles.
> 
> This is what I said;  You seem to be ignoring this.  Quote Originally Posted by tblwdc  View Post
> Speeding isn't contrary to my morals or principles. Just because the legislature has passed a law doesn't mean it meets my morals. There are differences. I'm sorry you can't grip that principle.
> 
> Now you're suggesting that speed limits are immoral?
> 
> Yes, some are.  If not, why two years ago are they 55 and now the same roads are 65?  Some speed limits are about revenue and not safety.  That's immoral.
> 
> Either way, your principle, as you defined, is to not break the law.  Your actions, as you reported, is to violate the law by speeding.  The dictionary.com definition of hypocrite is:noun
> 1.  a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
> 2.  a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
> 
> You, like 100% of people who are not Jesus, act as a hypocrite.  You, like probably 85% of people, think your actions are somehow different.  They're not.I self-diagnose as a very attractive, fit, 27 year old.  The reality is that I'm a slightly over-weight man who hasn't been in my 20s for decades.  His actions, reality, contradict his self-diagnosis.Or, more accurately likely, his illness diminishes his principles.



This diatribe is a nice distraction for you to move away from the real issue.  Josh Duggar is a scum bag child molesting cheater.  You seem to be trying to cast his sins to others.  Nice try, but you fail.

I'm not a hypocrite because I don't compromise my values.  I don't pretend to have virtues, morals or religious beliefs, I do.  Duggar's words were that he had those, but his actions were quite different.  Mine are not.  I would be hypocritical if I were telling others not to do something I did.  You can't even understand the definition you provided.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> His actions, reality, contradict his self-diagnosis.Or, more accurately likely, his illness diminishes his principles.



How does his PORN ADDICTION, a self diagnosed illness diminish his principles.  He has no illness which makes him cheat.  It's his lack of character and morals.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> How does his PORN ADDICTION, a self diagnosed illness diminish his principles.  He has no illness which makes him cheat.  It's his lack of character and morals.



A sex addict, which is what his actions demonstrate that he is, is very much like any other addict. They do things contrary to their beliefs, their morals, their principles.  A pre-treatment sex addict is not acting by choice.  You should really do some research on sex addiction from reputable medical or academic sources before being so judgmental.

I recommend starting with the Mayo Clinic (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...exual-behavior/basics/definition/con-20020126).


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> A sex addict, which is what his actions demonstrate that he is, is very much like any other addict. They do things contrary to their beliefs, their morals, their principles.  A pre-treatment sex addict is not acting by choice.  You should really do some research on sex addiction from reputable medical or academic sources before being so judgmental.
> 
> I recommend starting with the Mayo Clinic (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...exual-behavior/basics/definition/con-20020126).



Now you are just making sh*t up!  LOL....just like a liberal to blame a disease instead of human acts.  So you are saying anyone who cheats on their spouse is a sex addict.  Okay.  I got ya.  LMAO.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> Now you are just making sh*t up!  LOL....just like a liberal to blame a disease instead of human acts.  So you are saying anyone who cheats on their spouse is a sex addict.  Okay.  I got ya.  LMAO.



I'm not sure who you have, but I never said every cheater is a sex addict.  I said Duggar has the symptoms of a sex addict.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> I'm not sure who you have, but I never said every cheater is a sex addict.  I said Duggar has the symptoms of a sex addict.



And what symptons Dr. This person does Josh have that any other cheater doesn't?


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> And what symptons Dr. This person does Josh have that any other cheater doesn't?



Did you read the Mayo Clinic link?


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> Did you read the Mayo Clinic link?



I did.  What does that have to do with my question.  All you know is Josh Cheated and claims to have an undiagnosed porn addiction.

I asked what "symptoms" Does he have that every other cheater doesn't?


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> I did.  What does that have to do with my question.  All you know is Josh Cheated and claims to have an undiagnosed porn addiction.
> 
> I asked what "symptoms" Does he have that every other cheater doesn't?


Some indications that you may be struggling with compulsive sexual behavior include:
1.  Your sexual impulses are intense and feel as if they're beyond your control
2.  Even though you feel driven to do certain sexual behaviors, you may or may not find the activity a source of pleasure or satisfaction
3.  You use compulsive sexual behavior as an escape from other problems, such as loneliness, depression, anxiety or stress
4.  You continue to engage in sexual behaviors that have serious consequences, such as the potential for getting or giving someone else a sexually transmitted infection, the loss of important relationships, trouble at work, or legal problems
5.  You have trouble establishing and maintaining emotional closeness, even if you're married or in a committed relationship

My guess, based on the reports, is that the average cheater - the kind of woman or man who's just done with their relationship with their partner, and being a complete ass by cheating instead of facing it and ending the relationship first - does not experience at least 1, 2, and 4.  Duggar, it seems, does experience those 3 symptoms (at least).  I would guess, based on the reports, that he also experiences #3.

You're welcome to judge him without knowledge or experience - no one is telling you that you can't.  I just suggest you become informed before judging.  Your average person cheating is not Martin Luther King, or Bill Clinton, or Josh Duggar.  Your average person cheating is more like Newt Gingrich - cheated, married the new person, stayed that way for decades.  

Any other questions?


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> Some indications that you may be struggling with compulsive sexual behavior include:
> 1.  Your sexual impulses are intense and feel as if they're beyond your control
> 2.  Even though you feel driven to do certain sexual behaviors, you may or may not find the activity a source of pleasure or satisfaction
> 3.  You use compulsive sexual behavior as an escape from other problems, such as loneliness, depression, anxiety or stress
> 4.  You continue to engage in sexual behaviors that have serious consequences, such as the potential for getting or giving someone else a sexually transmitted infection, the loss of important relationships, trouble at work, or legal problems
> 5.  You have trouble establishing and maintaining emotional closeness, even if you're married or in a committed relationship
> 
> Any other questions?



Yea, I got a couple.  Where are you getting your information that Josh exhibited 1, 2, and four.  He said he was addicted to porn.  The rest of that garbage is stuff you made up.  How do you know what's in the mind of a cheater?  All you know is Josh sexually molested children and cheated on his wife.  The rest of that is crap you are spewing to try and blame his evilness on some illness.  Just like liberals always do.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> Yea, I got a couple.  Where are you getting your information that Josh exhibited 1, 2, and four.  He said he was addicted to porn.  The rest of that garbage is stuff you made up.  How do you know what's in the mind of a cheater?  All you know is Josh sexually molested children and cheated on his wife.  The rest of that is crap you are spewing to try and blame his evilness on some illness.  Just like liberals always do.


What does it do for you to call me a liberal?  Do you gain some kind of testosterone boost or something?  I really don't get it.  I'm actually a very conservative person.

I'm getting my information from reading the apology, the reports of what happened, and using some education, training, and a combination of intelligence and common sense.  Clearly, if he molested other kids while he was a kid after he got caught, he fits #1 and #4.  His apology strongly implies #2 and #4.  

But, please, feel free to use no knowledge of the subject to simply call him evil instead of having an informed, educated, and intelligent opinion.  It seems to suit you.  I don't believe Mr. Duggar, Dr. King, or Mr. Clinton are evil.  Every indication is that they are sick - that they have a mental illness.  Like I wouldn't say a woman with Tourette's Syndrome is simply ill-mannered, or a kid with actual ADHD is a standard discipline problem, or a blind person is just a really bad driver, I wouldn't ascribe a moral judgment to Dr. King, Mr. Clinton, or Mr. Duggar.  But, if that's your need, if that somehow fulfills you to morally judge an illness, by all means do so.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> What does it do for you to call me a liberal?  Do you gain some kind of testosterone boost or something?  I really don't get it.  I'm actually a very conservative person.
> 
> I'm getting my information from reading the apology, the reports of what happened, and using some education, training, and a combination of intelligence and common sense.  Clearly, if he molested other kids while he was a kid after he got caught, he fits #1 and #4.  His apology strongly implies #2 and #4.
> 
> But, please, feel free to use no knowledge of the subject to simply call him evil instead of having an informed, educated, and intelligent opinion.  It seems to suit you.  I don't believe Mr. Duggar, Dr. King, or Mr. Clinton are evil.  Every indication is that they are sick - that they have a mental illness.  Like I wouldn't say a woman with Tourette's Syndrome is simply ill-mannered, or a kid with actual ADHD is a standard discipline problem, or a blind person is just a really bad driver, I wouldn't ascribe a moral judgment to Dr. King, Mr. Clinton, or Mr. Duggar.  But, if that's your need, if that somehow fulfills you to morally judge an illness, by all means do so.



so now you are 'not defending him' by insisting that duggar is a sex addict and not 'evil' for molesting his sisters and others, or cheating on his wife
:classic:


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> so now you are 'not defending him' by insisting that duggar is a sex addict and not 'evil' for molesting his sisters and others, or cheating on his wife
> :classic:


Wow, you're only restating exactly what I said, except you put "not defending him" in quotes.  

Yes, when someone is sick I don't look at them as evil people.  I think his actions are morally reprehensible, but I don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  I think if he gets treatment, now that he is past the first marker (admitting his problem), he has great potential to be healed.

But, as with tblwdc, if you have a need to morally judge an illness - if that's what fulfills you as a person - by all means do so.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> Wow, you're only restating exactly what I said, except you put "not defending him" in quotes.
> 
> Yes, when someone is sick I don't look at them as evil people.  I think his actions are morally reprehensible, but I don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  I think if he gets treatment, now that he is past the first marker (admitting his problem), he has great potential to be healed.
> 
> But, as with tblwdc, if you have a need to morally judge an illness - if that's what fulfills you as a person - by all means do so.



So Hitler wasn't bad?


----------



## Midnightrider

tblwdc said:


> So Hitler wasn't bad?



duggar is reformed now that he 'admitted he has a problem'..... it doesn't matter that he only admitted it after he was caught red handed with the cheating and when the media outed him with the molestation. 

Personally i think molesters can not be reformed. The end. Its one of the few crimes i would keep as life imprisonment for a punsihment if i were king. But hey, TP isn't defending him


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> So Hitler wasn't bad?



If you go back, you'll see I was never discussing Hitler, nor did I say that there is no such thing as a bad person.  I do think it's pretty rare.  As I recall, I said that Duggar is not a Hitler or a Khan (to most, that implication would be that I think Hitler and Genghis Khan actually WERE bad people, but your interpretation is of course up to you).

Do you think Duggar and Hitler are pretty evenly comparable?


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> duggar is reformed now that he 'admitted he has a problem'..... it doesn't matter that he only admitted it after he was caught red handed with the cheating and when the media outed him with the molestation.


So, you took me saying, "I think if he gets treatment, now that he is past the first marker (admitting his problem), he has great potential to be healed" and inferred from that that Duggar is reformed?  I would never want to box you, as you have one of the longest reaches of anyone I've ever met 


> Personally i think molesters can not be reformed. The end. Its one of the few crimes i would keep as life imprisonment for a punsihment if i were king. But hey, TP isn't defending him


Your assessment would be accurate for some, inaccurate for others.  But, hey, at least you have it accurate that I'm not defending him.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> If you go back, you'll see I was never discussing Hitler, nor did I say that there is no such thing as a bad person.  I do think it's pretty rare.  As I recall, I said that Duggar is not a Hitler or a Khan (to most, that implication would be that I think Hitler and Genghis Khan actually WERE bad people, but your interpretation is of course up to you).
> 
> Do you think Duggar and Hitler are pretty evenly comparable?



So it's okay for you to "morally judge" one person with a mental illness but not another.  Boy, talk about hypocrites.  Yes, I think anyone who preys on children is evil.  I can't think of a worse evil than that.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> So it's okay for you to "morally judge" one person with a mental illness but not another.  Boy, talk about hypocrites.  Yes, I think anyone who preys on children is evil.  I can't think of a worse evil than that.



So, to put it bluntly, you see no difference between Duggar and Hitler?  I just want to make sure that's what you're saying.

And, no, it's not ok for me to morally judge one person with a mental illness but not another.  There's a whole manual about those kinds of things, known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM.  You should look into it.  You just might learn some things, if you could just open your mind.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> So, to put it bluntly, you see no difference between Duggar and Hitler?  I just want to make sure that's what you're saying.
> 
> And, no, it's not ok for me to morally judge one person with a mental illness but not another.  There's a whole manual about those kinds of things, known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DVM.  You should look into it.  You just might learn some things, if you could just open your mind.



Evil is evil.  There is certainly a difference between what they did.  Both acts were evil.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> Evil is evil.  There is certainly a difference between what they did.  Both acts were evil.


Then, we simply have a difference of opinion, based on our knowledge and education of the topic.  One of us is informed, one of us is not, and that leads to a different understanding.

I am curious, though, if "evil is evil", then what is the difference to you on this?


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> I am curious, though, if "evil is evil", then what is the difference to you on this?



Can you properly structure your sentence so that one might understand the message you are attempting to convey?  Please don't be hypocritical when you do so, as you were when you talked about morally judging mental illness, then judged a person with mental illness.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> Can you properly structure your sentence so that one might understand the message you are attempting to convey?  Please don't be hypocritical when you do so, as you were when you talked about morally judging mental illness, then judged a person with mental illness.



That's a difficult request, because it assumes I judged anyone, and I did not.  However, I will re-ask the question.

If all evil is the same ("evil is evil"), then how do you define a difference in evil (evil being evil, after all) between Duggar and Hitler?  You say all evil is evil, then you say there's a difference.  What's the difference to your way of thinking when all evil is just evil?


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> If all evil is the same ("evil is evil"), then how do you define a difference in evil (evil being evil, after all) between Duggar and Hitler?  You say all evil is evil, then you say there's a difference.  What's the difference to your way of thinking when all evil is just evil?



I never said what you are saying I said.  I said there is a difference in what they did.  I didn't say there was a difference in them being evil.  Don't put words in my mouth.  You are not qualified to be me.  If you are not intelligent enough to know what the difference in what they did is, then you are simple.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Then, we simply have a difference of opinion, *based on our knowledge and education of the topic.  **One of us is informed*, one of us is not, and that leads to a different understanding.
> 
> I am curious, though, if "evil is evil", then what is the difference to you on this?



Please explain your knowledge and education on the subject. And please, lets skip the twenty pages of you denying you just said it and just get to your qualifications to speak on sexual addiction and josh Duggar in particular.

This ought to be as good as the 'i voted for democrats before' thread 



tblwdc said:


> I never said what you are saying I said.  I said there is a difference in what they did.  I didn't say there was a difference in them being evil.  Don't put words in my mouth.  You are not qualified to be me.  If you are not intelligent enough to know what the difference in what they did is, then you are simple.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> I never said what you are saying I said.  I said there is a difference in what they did.  I didn't say there was a difference in them being evil.  Don't put words in my mouth.  You are not qualified to be me.  If you are not intelligent enough to know what the difference in what they did is, then you are simple.



I do completely understand.  I'm trying to establish that YOU do.  You asked, in a conversation about Duggar, if Hitler was evil in my opinion.  Common sense says that you believe Hitler to be evil, and you verified that.  And, you said Duggar is evil, and, well, you said evil is evil.  YOU equated the two people twice, but then you said there's a difference.  Apparently, you don't actually think evil is evil, as you stated.  Or, there are varying degrees of evil (which is the same thing as evil not being evil, but it's a weasel way out of admitting that).  Do you believe there are varying degrees of evil?  If so, could you provide some means of quantifying them?  After all, I provided my source of differentiating (the DSM). What's yours?


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> Please explain your knowledge and education on the subject. And please, lets skip the twenty pages of you denying you just said it and just get to your qualifications to speak on sexual addiction and josh Duggar in particular.


I don't deny what I say, I correct mischaracterizations of what I say.

One of my degrees is in psychology.  One of the fields of study to obtain the degree was addiction.

What's your qualification to judge differently?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I don't deny what I say, I correct mischaracterizations of what I say.
> 
> One of my degrees is in psychology.  One of the fields of study to obtain the degree was addiction.
> 
> What's your qualification to judge differently?



So if I am to believe you, your expertise of both sexual addiction and josh duggar's sexual addiction in particular is that you took a couple courses on addiction at some point? 

Guess what, me too.the difference is that I am not defending the guy with 'its a disease' when neither of us has anything to back that up. You can keep pulling suppositions from your ass, but all we really know is that he molested his sisters, at least one other girl, and he cheated on his wife. 

There is a lot more evidence of a sexual predator or antisocial/psychopathic more than a simple sex addict. If we are going to armchair analyze the guy and all.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> So if I am to believe you, your expertise of both sexual addiction and josh duggar's sexual addiction in particular is that you took a couple courses on addiction at some point?
> 
> Guess what, me too.the difference is that I am not defending the guy with 'its a disease' when neither of us has anything to back that up. You can keep pulling suppositions from your ass, but all we really know is that he molested his sisters, at least one other girl, and he cheated on his wife.
> 
> There is a lot more evidence of a sexual predator or antisocial/psychopathic more than a simple sex addict. If we are going to armchair analyze the guy and all.



Actually, there's a lot more to my education than a couple of courses, and a lot more information than you described.  But, you're certainly welcome to your opinion.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Actually, there's a lot more to my education than a couple of courses, and a lot more information than you described.  But, you're certainly welcome to your opinion.



you think really highly of yourself


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> you think really highly of yourself



LMAO   Coming from Midnight that is really something.

I wish I could buy him for what he is worth and sell him for what he THINKS he is worth.


----------



## Hank

Hijinx said:


> LMAO   Coming from Midnight that is really something.
> 
> I wish I could buy him for what he is worth and sell him for what he THINKS he is worth.



Go to bed.


----------



## Hijinx

Hank said:


> Go to bed.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> you think really highly of yourself



  No, I just know what I've learned, where, and why.  I asked you what your qualifications were, and you said, "me, too" after characterizing my education as a couple of courses.  So, you took a couple of courses.  I'm well beyond that.

Again, you're welcome to your uninformed opinion resulting in unfounded judgment.  That's the great thing about America!


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> No, I just know what I've learned, where, and why.  I asked you what your qualifications were, and you said, "me, too" after characterizing my education as a couple of courses.  So, you took a couple of courses.  I'm well beyond that.
> 
> Again, you're welcome to your uninformed opinion resulting in unfounded judgment.  That's the great thing about America!



I'll be happy to comapre qualifications, you go first. So far all you have given is some vague reference to taking some classes on addiction at some point. You haven't given a single specific on whaty your qualifications are. You certainly haven't shown anything that qualifies you to speak about duggar's condition specifically. You are pulling that straight from your ass.

so break down your education and experience that qualifies you to speak about sex addiction and duggar's diagnosis as such in particular.


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> I'll be happy to comapre qualifications, you go first. So far all you have given is some vague reference to taking some classes on addiction at some point. You haven't given a single specific on whaty your qualifications are. You certainly haven't shown anything that qualifies you to speak about duggar's condition specifically. You are pulling that straight from your ass.
> 
> so break down your education and experience that qualifies you to speak about sex addiction and duggar's diagnosis as such in particular.



Geez how long will this a-hole go on dragging out this BS.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> I do completely understand.  I'm trying to establish that YOU do.  You asked, in a conversation about Duggar, if Hitler was evil in my opinion.  Common sense says that you believe Hitler to be evil, and you verified that.  And, you said Duggar is evil, and, well, you said evil is evil.  YOU equated the two people twice, but then you said there's a difference.  Apparently, you don't actually think evil is evil, as you stated.  Or, there are varying degrees of evil (which is the same thing as evil not being evil, but it's a weasel way out of admitting that).  Do you believe there are varying degrees of evil?  If so, could you provide some means of quantifying them?  After all, I provided my source of differentiating (the DVM). What's yours?



It is obvious you do not understand because you keep contributing partial statements to me but leave out the pertinent part of my comment.  I don’t know what West Indie Jr. College you allegedly got your psychology degree in, but you clearly failed English.  You seem incapable of proper sentence structure and can’t grasp simple concepts.
Please pay attention to what I wrote.  Pay attention to all of what I wrote, not just that which fits your position.  If you are capable of that, then you might be able to understand what I said.  Your comprehension skills are not that of a college graduate, so I hope you didn't spend a lot of money.


----------



## Midnightrider

Hijinx said:


> Geez how long will this a-hole go on dragging out this BS.



So far he has dragged it out for over 500 posts. I dont know why anyone would continue to defend a molester and cheater, but he feels the need. I guess its just like you feeling the need to be a troll :shrug:


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> So far he has dragged it out for over 500 posts. I dont know why anyone would continue to defend a molester and cheater, but he feels the need. I guess its just like you feeling the need to be a troll :shrug:



Or you feeling the need to be a sh1thead.


----------



## Hank

Hijinx said:


> Or you feeling the need to be a sh1thead.



Go to bed.


----------



## nhboy

Hijinx said:


> Or you feeling the need to be a sh1thead.



Or you feeling the need to be an asswipe.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> It is obvious you do not understand because you keep contributing partial statements to me but leave out the pertinent part of my comment.  I don’t know what West Indie Jr. College you allegedly got your psychology degree in, but you clearly failed English.  You seem incapable of proper sentence structure and can’t grasp simple concepts.
> Please pay attention to what I wrote.  Pay attention to all of what I wrote, not just that which fits your position.  If you are capable of that, then you might be able to understand what I said.  Your comprehension skills are not that of a college graduate, so I hope you didn't spend a lot of money.


So, clearly anyone can understand that there are differences in what they did.  But, you asked if I thought Hitler was evil.  Now, I’ll explain this in excruciating detail since you seem to not comprehend what I write.  
When someone asks something like “So Hitler wasn’t bad?” in response to my saying that a different person “is sick [therefore] I don’t look at them as evil”, it is reasonable to assume that (1) they believe Hitler is evil, and (2) they think that the other person (in this case, Josh Duggar) is as evil as Hitler.  Otherwise, if they see a difference, they’re just being an obnoxious rectum with no actual point but to throw a Hitler reference out for no apparent reason.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed you believed Hitler to be evil, and asked you (instead of assuming) if you believed Duggar to be equally evil as Hitler.  You responded with: 





tblwdc said:


> Yes, I think anyone who preys on children is evil.  I can't think of a worse evil than that.


That didn’t answer the question at all, but I’ve come to expect that based on the number of questions you’ve left unanswered.  I asked if they were equals in evil, and you said Duggar is evil (that’s like asking if both Jack and Jim each have $20, and you say Jim has $20 Now, that seemed a little harsh – you can’t think of a single thing at all in the whole world than a teenager feeling up another kid, albeit incestuously and the other kid is likely pre-pubescent?  You seemed to be lacking a good bit of imagination here, so I reiterated





This_person said:


> So, to put it bluntly, you see no difference between Duggar and Hitler?  I just want to make sure that's what you're saying.


You subsequently provided an equally non-answer answer.  You said:





tblwdc said:


> Evil is evil.  There is certainly a difference between what they did.  Both acts were evil.


So, I tried to get you to simply answer, and you refused.  Or, you didn’t understand the question, “do you see any difference between Duggar and Hitler?”  I find that to be a question that has almost no capability of being more obvious.  I suppose I could add “…any difference in the level of evil between…”, but experience tells me you’ll be incapable or unwilling to answer that question, too.
Thus, I feel like I understood what you were trying to say.  It seems to me you were trying to say they’re both evil, and evil is evil, and by the associative property that means they’re equally evil.  But, that doesn’t jive with you saying that Duggar is actually worse, because you “can’t think of an evil worse” than what Duggar has done.  That came after the Hitler question that YOU raised.  That means you already had Hitler on your mind, and that’s not worse than Duggar’s actions.  At the very least, you see their actions as equally evil.  Because, after all, evil is evil.  Well, unless there’s the “worse evil” you described.
Maybe it’s not me that doesn’t understand what you’re saying.  Maybe it’s you?  I have tried very hard to not judge your inability to hold a consistent thought.
But, if I don’t understand, please tell me if, since you “can’t think of an evil worse than” what Duggar did, do you see the level of evil personified by Hitler as equal, or less evil than Duggar?  Clearly Hitler is not worse, because you can’t think of an evil worse than Duggar.  So, is their level of evil the same, or is Hitler less evil than Duggar?


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> I'll be happy to comapre qualifications, you go first.


I did.  I told you I had an advanced degree in psychology, with a special emphasis on addiction.

Your turn.


----------



## nhboy

This_person said:


> I did.  I told you I had an advanced degree in psychology, with a special emphasis on addiction. Your turn.



So what is it, a master's or a doctorate?


----------



## This_person

nhboy said:


> So what is it, a master's or a doctorate?


What's yours?  Why do you and MR now suddenly think this is about me, and not the facts of the situation.  I've provided the DSM, I've given simplistic symptoms and described how and why I think Duggar meets them.  

Is the fact you two can't refute the data the reason you want to now challenge my qualifications to offer an opinion?  I've seen no request made of anyone else, nor anyone else's qualifications established.


----------



## nhboy

This_person said:


> What's yours?  Why do you and MR now suddenly think this is about me, and not the facts of the situation.  I've provided the DSM, I've given simplistic symptoms and described how and why I think Duggar meets them.  Is the fact you two can't refute the data the reason you want to now challenge my qualifications to offer an opinion?  I've seen no request made of anyone else, nor anyone else's qualifications established.



So what is it, a master's or a doctorate?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I did.  I told you I had an *advanced degree in psychology, with a special emphasis on addiction.*
> Your turn.



That's not what you said at all.....



This_person said:


> I don't deny what I say, I correct mischaracterizations of what I say.
> 
> *One of my degrees is in psychology.  One of the fields of study to obtain the degree was addiction.*What's your qualification to judge differently?



I'm smelling some pretty strong 
This is just like the 'i voted for democrats' thread.


----------



## This_person

nhboy said:


> So what is it, a master's or a doctorate?



How does my answer matter to you?  Do you believe that I would post a diploma?  Will you post yours?  Does it change that you guys can't refute my assertions?


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> That's not what you said at all.....
> 
> 
> 
> I'm smelling some pretty strong
> This is just like the 'i voted for democrats' thread.



I'm guessing it's you that you are smelling.  I've given my answer, what's yours?  What's your qualifications?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I'm guessing it's you that you are smelling.  I've given my answer, what's yours?  What's your qualifications?



No, its your bull####


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> No, its your bull####



The answer to "what are your qualifications" is "it's your bull####"?

Forget that.  Since you've described your qualifications as you took a couple of courses, what do you think of what the DSM has to say about the symptoms?  Based on Duggar's admitted actions, spoken remorse, etc., how would you diagnose him?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> The answer to "what are your qualifications" is "it's your bull####"?
> 
> Forget that.  Since you've described your qualifications as you took a couple of courses, what do you think of what the DSM has to say about the symptoms?  Based on Duggar's admitted actions, spoken remorse, etc., how would you diagnose him?


That's how I described your qualifications. 

I already gave my diagnosis. You ignored it


----------



## nhboy

This_person said:


> Do you believe that I would post a diploma?



No. So what is it, a master's or a doctorate?


----------



## Hijinx

nhboy said:


> No. So what is it, a master's or a doctorate?



LMAO This gets sillier by the day.


----------



## Bann

Wow.  You guys really care that much about the Duggar thing that you spend 500+ posts picking nits upon nits?


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> That's how I described your qualifications.
> 
> I already gave my diagnosis. You ignored it



What are your qualifications on diagnosing evil?


----------



## This_person

nhboy said:


> No. So what is it, a master's or a doctorate?



What does that have to do with the discussion?  Why are you obsessed with my education?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> What are your qualifications on diagnosing evil?


i didnt diagnosis anyone as evil :shrug:


This_person said:


> What does that have to do with the discussion?  Why are you obsessed with my education?



why are you obsessed with my qualifications? you wont even say what yours are. So far you have given two vague but desparate answers.


----------



## This_person

Bann said:


> Wow.  You guys really care that much about the Duggar thing that you spend 500+ posts picking nits upon nits?



Personally, I find them hilarious.  They lost every part of the argument, so nits are all they have left.  For example:


I said (essentially, the same as) I had a green car, and then I said  I had a dark green car with wire rims.  To MR, that was "not what you said at all".  I find that pretty damned funny.  So, I play to keep seeing how stupid they can make themselves.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Personally, I find them hilarious.  They lost every part of the argument, so nits are all they have left.  For example:
> View attachment 109462
> 
> I said (essentially, the same as) I had a green car, and then I said  I had a dark green car with wire rims.  To MR, that was "not what you said at all".  I find that pretty damned funny.  So, I play to keep seeing how stupid they can make themselves.



bwhahahaha

you play the same stupid games in every thread you are in.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> i didnt diagnosis anyone as evil :shrug:


I apologize, you are correct that the most recent diagnosis you gave was:





Midnightrider said:


> There is a lot more evidence of a sexual predator or antisocial/psychopathic more than a simple sex addict. If we are going to armchair analyze the guy and all.



This came after saying:





Midnightrider said:


> A molester is a bad person. (period)


So, I equated "bad person" with "evil", since you later said:





Midnightrider said:


> so now you are 'not defending him' by insisting that duggar is a sex addict and not 'evil' for molesting his sisters and others, or cheating on his wife
> :classic:


The very strong implication (not direct statement) in that last quote is that you believed it was wrong to say Duggar is not "evil".

But, if you really aren't diagnosing him as simply being "a bad person" or "evil", as you now say, but rather as a sexual predator or psychopath (non-descript), what is your basis for that?





Midnightrider said:


> Personally i think molesters can not be reformed.


Are you aware that millions of examples prove that personal belief to be inaccurate?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I apologize, *you are correct *that the most recent diagnosis you gave was:
> 
> This came after saying:So, I equated "bad person" with "evil", since you later said:The very strong implication (not direct statement) in that last quote is that you believed it was wrong to say Duggar is not "evil".
> 
> But, if you really aren't diagnosing him as simply being "a bad person" or "evil", as you now say, but rather as a sexual predator or psychopath (non-descript), what is your basis for that?Are you aware that millions of examples prove that personal belief to be inaccurate?



keep picking nits.


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> keep picking nits.



I know it's hard for you to discuss the subject of the thread, not me, but please try.



This_person said:


> But, if you really aren't diagnosing him as simply being "a bad person" or "evil", as you now say, but rather as a sexual predator or psychopath (non-descript), what is your basis for that?
> 
> Are you aware that millions of examples prove that personal belief (that molesters cannot be reformed)  to be inaccurate?


Can you answer these questions?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I know it's hard for you to discuss the subject of the thread, not me, but please try.
> 
> 
> Can you answer these questions?



just as soon as you break down what your alleged qualifications are. so far all you have done is obfuscate.....


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> just as soon as you break down what your alleged qualifications are. so far all you have done is obfuscate.....


So, it's all about me, not the opinions on the situation.  Gotcha! 

Note, I never once asked anyone for their qualifications to have an opinion until asked (repeatedly) for my own.  I've given you mine (degree/study), and you've given me yours (took some classes), so I'm not sure why you can't discuss opinions until we re-hash this same thing without you ever providing anything even as much as I have so far, but that's your prerogative.  If you can't discuss the information without another round of MY (never yours or anyone else's) qualification discussions, then you forfeit the right to continue this conversation.  [Edit:  At least, you forfeit it with me.  I'm sure others will be interested in your analysis of bad vs. evil and non-descript discussions of psychosis)


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> So, it's all about me, not the opinions on the situation.  Gotcha!
> 
> Note, I never once asked anyone for their qualifications to have an opinion until asked (repeatedly) for my own.  *I've given you mine (degree/study), and you've given me yours (took some classes*), so I'm not sure why you can't discuss opinions until we re-hash this same thing without you ever providing anything even as much as I have so far, but that's your prerogative.  If you can't discuss the information without another round of MY (never yours or anyone else's) qualification discussions, then you forfeit the right to continue this conversation.  [Edit:  At least, you forfeit it with me.  I'm sure others will be interested in your analysis of bad vs. evil and non-descript discussions of psychosis)



no you didn't and thats not what i said. :shrug:

You are the one who wanted to play 'whose is bigger'. Now that you have been called on it you dont want to play. Its not a rehash, you have given two vague and desparate answers.

if you dont like it, then go away :shrug: :shrug:


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> no you didn't and thats not what i said. :shrug:


Actually, I did repeatedly say I have a degree and I've studied it.  You have responded with:





Midnightrider said:


> So if I am to believe you, your expertise of both sexual addiction and josh duggar's sexual addiction in particular is that you took a couple courses on addiction at some point?
> 
> Guess what, me too.


Seems as though you don't know what you've said.





> You are the one who wanted to play 'whose is bigger'. Now that you have been called on it you dont want to play. Its not a rehash, you have given two vague and desparate answers.
> 
> if you dont like it, then go away :shrug: :shrug:


I don't "like" having my answers inaccurately described as you did, nor me being asked to provide MY qualifications to have an opinion as me playing "whose is bigger" when I did not challenge anyone else's right to have an opinion first.  That seems pretty intentionally dishonest to me.

But, I don't think this thread is about me the way you do.  I think it's about Duggar (and Dunham, who said and did worse things but got a pass from the media, but that aspect of the thread seems to have been forgotten).  So, I keep going back to the topic at hand.

You're seemingly unable to stick to the topic, because (as usual) you seem to think the topic is me.  Do you have secret fantasies about me that the police should be aware of?  You spend an awful lot of time on ME when the topic is Duggar.  Have you used those couple of courses to evaluate THAT?


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> So, I tried to get you to simply answer, and you refused.  Or, you didn’t understand the question, “*do you see any difference between Duggar and Hitler?*”




My gawd....... I gave you an answer!



> Quote Originally Posted by tblwdc  View Post
> Evil is evil. *There is certainly a difference between what they did.* Both acts were evil.



How is that not an answer to your question?


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> When someone asks something like “So Hitler wasn’t bad?” in response to my saying that a different person “is sick [therefore] I don’t look at them as evil”



Why do you feel the need to lie and make up stuff in order to try to further your losing argument?  Who ever said "So Hitler wasn't bad"?  You do understand what attributing quotes mean don't you?  It means those are the exact words spoken.  

I understand you are desperately trying to get yourself out of this because you said you would not judge a person who did something wrong because of a mental illness, but then had to back off because you are a hypocrite when Hilter was brought into this.  I get it.  You made a stupid comment and now are too ignorant to back off of that comment.  I stand by what I said.  Hitler and Duggar are evil.  They did not do the same thing.  I don't see in the definition of evil where it gives levels or degrees of evil.  Did they teach you that in your psychology school?


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> My gawd....... I gave you an answer!
> 
> 
> 
> How is that not an answer to your question?


I addressed that:





This_person said:


> I suppose I could add “…any difference in the level of evil between…”, but experience tells me you’ll be incapable or unwilling to answer that question, too.
> ...
> But, if I don’t understand, please tell me if, since you “can’t think of an evil worse than” what Duggar did, do you see the level of evil personified by Hitler as equal, or less evil than Duggar?  Clearly Hitler is not worse, because you can’t think of an evil worse than Duggar.  So, is their level of evil the same, or is Hitler less evil than Duggar?


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> Why do you feel the need to lie and make up stuff in order to try to further your losing argument?  Who ever said "So Hitler wasn't bad"?  You do understand what attributing quotes mean don't you?  It means those are the exact words spoken.


Golly, I don't know _*who*_ could have said that:





tblwdc said:


> So Hitler wasn't bad?


Oh, it was you...





> I understand you are desperately trying to get yourself out of this because you said you would not judge a person who did something wrong because of a mental illness, but then had to back off because you are a hypocrite when Hilter was brought into this.  I get it.  You made a stupid comment and now are too ignorant to back off of that comment.


I didn't judge Hitler.  :shrug:





> I stand by what I said.  Hitler and Duggar are evil.  They did not do the same thing.  I don't see in the definition of evil where it gives levels or degrees of evil.  Did they teach you that in your psychology school?


Evil is not a psychological concept, it's a moral one.

But, if you don't see varying degrees of evil (even after you said:





tblwdc said:


> I can't think of a worse evil than that.


which, if you'll note, describes _*you*_ using "worse ... than that" in a description of evil, which strongly implies that there are varying degrees of evil, then you're saying ipso facto that a kid copping a feel incestuously and without consent of another kid AND cheating on one's spouse is an equal evil to killing 11 million people for religious, racist, and other discriminatory reasons, starting a world war, and denying people citizenship based on religious reasons are really the same thing in terms of "level of evil" (since you "don't see in the definition of evil where it gives levels or degrees of evil".)

I get that's your point.  I just disagree.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> I addressed that:



You really can't be this stupid!



> Quote Originally Posted by This_person  View Post
> I suppose I could add “…any difference in the level of evil between…”, but experience tells me you’ll be incapable or unwilling to answer that question, too.
> ...
> But, if I don’t understand, please tell me if, since you “can’t think of an evil worse than” what Duggar did, do you see the level of evil personified by Hitler as equal, or less evil than Duggar? Clearly Hitler is not worse, because you can’t think of an evil worse than Duggar. So, is their level of evil the same, or is Hitler less evil than Duggar?



Well...maybe you can.



tblwdc said:


> Why do you feel the need to lie and make up stuff in order to try to further your losing argument?  Who ever said "So Hitler wasn't bad"?  You do understand what attributing quotes mean don't you?  It means those are the exact words spoken.
> 
> I understand you are desperately trying to get yourself out of this because you said you would not judge a person who did something wrong because of a mental illness, but then had to back off because you are a hypocrite when Hilter was brought into this.  I get it.  You made a stupid comment and now are too ignorant to back off of that comment.  I stand by what I said.  Hitler and Duggar are evil.  *They did not do the same thing.  I don't see in the definition of evil where it gives levels or degrees of evil.*  Did they teach you that in your psychology school?


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> You really can't be this stupid!
> 
> 
> 
> Well...maybe you can.



Read the post I gave after that.


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> Actually, I did repeatedly say I have a degree and I've studied it.  You have responded with:Seems as though you don't know what you've said.
> 
> I don't "like" having my answers inaccurately described as you did, nor me being asked to provide MY qualifications to have an opinion as me playing "whose is bigger" when I did not challenge anyone else's right to have an opinion first.  That seems pretty intentionally dishonest to me.
> 
> But, I don't think this thread is about me the way you do.  I think it's about Duggar (and Dunham, who said and did worse things but got a pass from the media, but that aspect of the thread seems to have been forgotten).  So, I keep going back to the topic at hand.
> 
> You're seemingly unable to stick to the topic, because (as usual) you seem to think the topic is me.  Do you have secret fantasies about me that the police should be aware of?  You spend an awful lot of time on ME when the topic is Duggar.  Have you used those couple of courses to evaluate THAT?



no, you havent said, you have been particularly illusive about it after throwing down the 'mine is bigger' gauntlett in this post right here:


This_person said:


> Then, we simply have a difference of opinion, *based on our knowledge and education of the topic.  One of us is informed, one of us is not, and that leads to a different understanding.*
> I am curious, though, if "evil is evil", then what is the difference to you on this?



so come on, tell us exactly what your qualifications are, and as i said before, spare us the 50 pages of BS to get there.


----------



## tblwdc

This_person said:


> Read the post I gave after that.





> Quote Originally Posted by tblwdc  View Post
> You really can't be this stupid!  Well...maybe you can.






This_person said:


> Read the post I gave after that.



Again, sentence structure is your friend.

How would anyone know what you meant by your post?


----------



## This_person

Midnightrider said:


> no, you havent said, you have been particularly illusive about it after throwing down the 'mine is bigger' gauntlett in this post right here:
> 
> 
> so come on, tell us exactly what your qualifications are, and as i said before, spare us the 50 pages of BS to get there.


I did spare you.  I told you I have a degree and specific concentration in the area of addiction.  And, I checked, this thread isn't about me.

So, keep fantasizing about me, but I won't respond to you anymore unless you'd like to switch from me to the topic of the thread.


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> Again, sentence structure is your friend.
> 
> How would anyone know what you meant by your post?


This post - read THIS POST HERE, BELOW:





> tblwdc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to lie and make up stuff in order to try to further your losing argument?  Who ever said "So Hitler wasn't bad"?  You do understand what attributing quotes mean don't you?  It means those are the exact words spoken.
> 
> 
> 
> Golly, I don't know _*who*_ could have said that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tblwdc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Hitler wasn't bad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, it was you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you are desperately trying to get yourself out of this because you said you would not judge a person who did something wrong because of a mental illness, but then had to back off because you are a hypocrite when Hilter was brought into this.  I get it.  You made a stupid comment and now are too ignorant to back off of that comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't judge Hitler.  :shrug:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand by what I said.  Hitler and Duggar are evil.  They did not do the same thing.  I don't see in the definition of evil where it gives levels or degrees of evil.  Did they teach you that in your psychology school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evil is not a psychological concept, it's a moral one.
> 
> But, if you don't see varying degrees of evil (even after you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tblwdc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't think of a worse evil than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which, if you'll note, describes _*you*_ using "worse ... than that" in a description of evil, which strongly implies that there are varying degrees of evil, then you're saying ipso facto that a kid copping a feel incestuously and without consent of another kid AND cheating on one's spouse is an equal evil to killing 11 million people for religious, racist, and other discriminatory reasons, starting a world war, and denying people citizenship based on religious reasons are really the same thing in terms of "level of evil" (since you "don't see in the definition of evil where it gives levels or degrees of evil".)
> 
> I get that's your point.  I just disagree.
Click to expand...


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I did spare you.  I told you I have a degree and specific concentration in the area of addiction.  And, I checked, this thread isn't about me.
> 
> So, keep fantasizing about me, but I won't respond to you anymore unless you'd like to switch from me to the topic of the thread.



i'd love to see you try to keep that promise/threat 

you made this thread about you about 50 pages ago. You decided to be the sole defender of duggar and his family. And now you made a claim you refuse to back up with anything more than vague BS. This is just like the 'i voted democrat' thread. 

so what is that degree anyway, and where from? when did you get it, and how does it give you special insight into duggar's condition, if he indeed has one?


----------



## Roman

Omg!


----------



## nhboy

This_person said:


> I did spare you.  I told you I have a degree and specific concentration in the area of addiction.



So what is it, a master's or a doctorate?


----------



## This_person

nhboy said:


> So what is it, a master's or a doctorate?



Yes


----------



## nhboy

This_person said:


> Yes



No good. You said you have "a" degree, so what is it, a master's or a doctorate?


----------



## This_person

nhboy said:


> No good. You said you have "a" degree, so what is it, a master's or a doctorate?


Why?


----------



## nhboy

This_person said:


> Why?



Do you have an Associates Degree from a local Community College?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I did spare you.  I told you I have a degree and specific concentration in the area of addiction.  And, I checked, this thread isn't about me.
> 
> So, keep fantasizing about me, but I won't respond to you anymore unless you'd like to switch from me to the topic of the thread.





This_person said:


> Yes



I guess its nhboy's turn to hand you your ads in this argument. Looks like he has done it in a lot fewer words


----------



## This_person

nhboy said:


> Do you have an Associates Degree from a local Community College?


I said I have an advanced degree, and when you asked if I have a master's or doctorate I said yes. I'm guessing, based on you now asking if I have an associates that you're hoping to get your  GED soon.
 But, my degrees are not from community college.  However, if they were I would be very proud of them because great education can be gotten from community college. 

Why do people like you and MR need to challenge the person speaking instead of addressing what is being discussed?  Are you afraid either your position or your understanding of the subject  is so weak that you need to change the subject to something you feel confident you can handle, like playing the Jon Stewart role in the discussion?


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I said I have an advanced degree, and when you asked if I have a master's or doctorate I said yes. I'm guessing, based on you now asking if I have an associates that you're hoping to get your  GED soon.
> But, my degrees are not from community college.  However, if they were I would be very proud of them because great education can be gotten from community college.
> 
> *Why do people like you and MR need to challenge the person speaking instead of addressing what is being discussed?  *Are you afraid either your position or your understanding of the subject  is so weak that you need to change the subject to something you feel confident you can handle, like playing the Jon Stewart role in the discussion?


Now why would anyone challenge a person who says this:


This_person said:


> Then, we simply have a difference of opinion, *based on our knowledge and education of the topic.  One of us is informed, one of us is not, and that leads to a different understanding.*
> I am curious, though, if "evil is evil", then what is the difference to you on this?



Btw, I have addressed the topic being discussed. I even gave you a counter diagnosis. You brought up your 'expertise', you got called on your bs, and you can't move past it.


----------



## nhboy

This_person said:


> I said I have an advanced degree, and when you asked if I have a master's or doctorate I said yes. I'm guessing, based on you now asking if I have an associates that you're hoping to get your  GED soon.
> But, my degrees are not from community college.  However, if they were I would be very proud of them because great education can be gotten from community college. Why do people like you and MR need to challenge the person speaking instead of addressing what is being discussed?  Are you afraid either your position or your understanding of the subject  is so weak that you need to change the subject to something you feel confident you can handle, like playing the Jon Stewart role in the discussion?



You're such a chicken####.


----------



## This_person

nhboy said:


> You're such a chicken####.


In what way do you mis-perceive that?


----------



## This_person

nhboy said:


> You're such a chicken####.



I never did get an answer from you as to why you think this thread is about me and my education instead of the topic of discussion.

You're good at calling names and throwing stones at things you don't like, but not so good at answering questions or voicing your own opinions.  "lol!" is not an answer, but it IS the only answer I expect from an intellectually-bankrupt poster.  Let's see if that fits you.....


----------



## Midnightrider

This_person said:


> I never did get an answer from you as to why you think this thread is about me and my education instead of the topic of discussion.
> 
> You're good at calling names and throwing stones at things you don't like, but not so good at answering questions or voicing your own opinions.  "lol!" is not an answer, but it IS the only answer I expect from an intellectually-bankrupt poster.  Let's see if that fits you.....



Says the guy who wanted to play 'whose is bigger' right until his bs was exposed. 
Talk about intellectually bankrupt.


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> Says the guy who wanted to play 'whose is bigger' right until his bs was exposed.
> Talk about intellectually bankrupt.



You have challenged This Person, but we haven't seen you list your  degrees or schools either.
You should be perfectly comfortable doing so since you don't mind asking for his.

As for me I just finished High School and went on the the school of life. Got a good education there too.
Funny how people who were lucky enough to go to college always look down on us who had to work.
My parents couldn't afford to send me to college, I wasn't so good in High School to earn a scholarship, and Government wasn't handing out money like it was just printed on their presses back in 1960.


----------



## This_person

Hijinx said:


> You have challenged This Person, but we haven't seen you list your  degrees or schools either.
> You should be perfectly comfortable doing so since you don't mind asking for his.
> 
> As for me I just finished High School and went on the the school of life. Got a good education there too.
> Funny how people who were lucky enough to go to college always look down on us who had to work.
> My parents couldn't afford to send me to college, I wasn't so good in High School to earn a scholarship, and Government wasn't handing out money like it was just printed on their presses back in 1960.


School of life is probably the best education of all 

I didn't go to school until later in life, when I paid for it some myself and some through employer tuition reimbursement.  I learned far more before going to school and after than during going to school.  Whether your diploma comes from Harvard, CSM, or Hard Knocks university is mostly irrelevant if you don't actually LEARN.  That's why Hard Knocks U is one of the best, it generally makes you learn or go hungry.


----------



## Midnightrider

Hijinx said:


> You have challenged This Person, but we haven't seen you list your  degrees or schools either.
> You should be perfectly comfortable doing so since you don't mind asking for his.
> 
> As for me I just finished High School and went on the the school of life. Got a good education there too.
> Funny how people who were lucky enough to go to college always look down on us who had to work.
> My parents couldn't afford to send me to college, I wasn't so good in High School to earn a scholarship, and Government wasn't handing out money like it was just printed on their presses back in 1960.



he threw down the 'mine is bigger' yet he hasn't given any specifics about his education.  As soon as he does i will be happy to spell out my qualifications. 

i dont look down on anyone because they didnt go to college.


----------



## Hank

Hijinx said:


> You have challenged This Person, but we haven't seen you list your  degrees or schools either.
> You should be perfectly comfortable doing so since you don't mind asking for his.
> 
> As for me I just finished High School and went on the the school of life. Got a good education there too.
> Funny how people who were lucky enough to go to college always look down on us who had to work.
> My parents couldn't afford to send me to college, I wasn't so good in High School to earn a scholarship, and Government wasn't handing out money like it was just printed on their presses back in 1960.


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> he threw down the 'mine is bigger' yet he hasn't given any specifics about his education.  As soon as he does i will be happy to spell out my qualifications.
> 
> i dont look down on anyone because they didnt go to college.



Bwahahahahhahahha you better go back and look at some of the posts you have made to me.

You talk a good game time to put up or shut up./


----------



## Hijinx

Hank said:


>



I wasn't crying , just posting my own education. You see I am perfectly comfortable with it.

But your little fiddle is a brilliant statement of your own qualifications, and indicative of most of your less than brilliant posts.


----------



## Midnightrider

Hijinx said:


> Bwahahahahhahahha you better go back and look at some of the posts you have made to me.
> 
> You talk a good game time to put up or shut up./



you are an idiot and a bigot. :shrug:
like i said, just as soon as TP 'puts up" i will.


----------



## PsyOps

[video=youtube;Cs4Gj7JsET4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs4Gj7JsET4[/video]


----------



## Midnightrider

PsyOps said:


> [video=youtube;Cs4Gj7JsET4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs4Gj7JsET4[/video]



a lot of subtle irony in your post


----------



## This_person

tblwdc said:


> I don't believe that is necessary unless you come on and say that you have some sort of superior knowledge based on advanced education.  I think at that point, it would be prudent to then provide at a minimum, what level of advanced education, from what University and possibly some sort of proof if you were hoping that others would rely on your conclusion.
> 
> Otherwise, one would just be a blowhard on the internet making things up as he went along to support his losing position.


Yes, that seems perfectly reasonable.  I am, after all, the very first person to ever suggest that I know more about a topic than the poster with whom I'm discussing a point. 

When you have a LOSING position, you attack the person who is making the better argument, like you did with me.  I gave you my source (DSM), my reasons, and my conclusion.  You gave me essentially (this isn't a direct quote like last time when you wanted to know who said something and it was YOU) "the guy is evil" with no basis or standard by which to judge someone evil.

But, nice try.


----------



## Hijinx

Midnightrider said:


> you are an idiot and a bigot. :shrug:
> like i said, just as soon as TP 'puts up" i will.



It's possible I am an idiot and a bigot, Now tell me: What does that have to do with you refusing to post your educational record?
You brag on it so much==let's see it. Put up or shut up.


----------

